Skip to main content

Full text of "State of India Vs Balwant Singh Rajoana (and others)"

See other formats


In  the  Court  of  Ravi  Kumar  Sondhi, 
Additional  Sessions  Judge, 
Chandigarh 


Session  Case  No 


2 -A  of  1995  (R 
14.03.2003) 


Computer  ID  No. 


36014R0122162003 


Date  of  Institution: 


18  . 12 .1995 . 


Date  of  Decision 


27.07 .2007 


Complainant : 


State  (through  CBI) 


Versus 


Accused : 


1 . 


Gurmeet  Singh  alias  Meeta 


son  of  Sh.Jaswinder  Singh, 
R/o  H. No. 981,    Phase  IV, 
SAS  Nagar,   Mohali    (PB) , 
permanent  address: 
H. No. 1431,   Gali  No. 4, 

Guru  Nanak  Nagar, 

Patiala . 

2  .      Lakhwinder  Singh  alias 
Lakha  alias  Hero 
son  of  Sh.Darshan  Singh 
r/o  near  Shiv  Temple, 
Village  Kansal 
District  Ropar, 
permanent   address : H . No . 15 6 , 
Gali  No. 9,   Guru  Nanak  Nagar, 
Opp.  Gurbax  Colony, Patiala . 

3.      Jagtar  Singh  alias  Tara 
son  of  Sh.   Sadhu  Singh 
r/o  226/3,   Arjun  Nagar, 
New  Delhi; 
permanent  address: 
Village    Dekwala,   P.S  Sadar, 
Ropar . 

Proclaimed  Offender) 


1 


4.  Navjot  Singh 

son  of  Sh.Tarlok  Singh, 
R/o  H. No. 889,    Phase  III-B-2 
Mohali  Distt.  Ropar. 

5.  Nasib  Singh 

son  of  Sh.   Bulant  Singh 
r/o  Village  Jhingra  Kalan 
Distt.   Ropar  (Punjab) 

6.      Shamsher  Singh 

s/o  Sh.Surjit  Singh, 
r/o  Village  Ukasi  Jattan, 
P.S.   Sadar,  Rajpura 
Distt.   Patiala (Punj ab) 

7  .      Balwant  Singh 

s/o  Sh.Malkiat  Singh, 
r/o  H.N0.68-A,   Rattan  Nagar, 
Patiala  (Punjab) 
permanent  address:  Village 
Rajoana  Kalan, P.S.  Sudhar, 
Distt . Ludhiana  (Punjab) 

8.      Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
S/o  Sh.Sher  Singh, 
r/o  Village  Hawara  , 
Police  Station  Khamano, 
Distt.   Fatehgarh  Sahib    (Pb) . 


Name  of  the  assassin 
accused 


Dilawar  Singh, 
s/o  Harnek  Singh, 
r/o  H.No.23,   Gali  No. 12 
Guru  Nanak  Nagar, 
Patiala . 


F.I.R.No  :  96  dated  31.8.1995 


2 


Police  Station 


North  now  Sector  3, 
Chandigarh . 


R.C.No.   of  CBI 


9/S/95  SIU.V/SIC. II/CBI 
/DSPE,   dated  1 .  9 .1995 . 


Offence  alleged 


Under   Sections    302,  307 
read  with   Section  120-B 
IPC   and  under   Section  3 
&  4    of  the  Explosive 
Substances  Act. 


Date  of  Commitment 


Vide  orders  dated 
11.12.1995,  19.12.1995 
and  19.2.1996 
respectively . 


Argued  by   :       Sh . S . K . Saxena  assisted  by  Sh.R.K. 

Handa  &  Sh.Rajan    Malhotra,  Spl.P.P 
for  the  CBI. 

Sh.D.S. Chimney,    Sh . A . S . Chahal , 

Sh . R . C . Sharma  and  Sh.S.S.Bawa  for 

accused  Gurmeet  Singh,   Navjot  Singh, 
Jagtar  Singh    Hawara,  Shamsher 
Singh,   Lakhwinder     Singh  and 
Nasib  Singh. 

Accused  Balwant  Singh  in  person. 

Present:  All  the  above     accused     in  custody 

except  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  who 
is  declared  proclaimed  offender. 

JUDGMENT: 


31  August,    1995  was  another  black  day  for 

the  people  of  Punjab,  when  Shri  Beant  Singh,  then 
Chief  Minister  of  Punjab,  was  assassinated  in  the 
Porch    of    the    Punjab    &    Haryana    Civil  Secretariat, 


3 


known  to  be  the  most  secure  place,  being  the  seat 
of  Capital  of  two  States  Punjab  &  Haryana.  It  is 
alleged  that  the  assassin  was  Dilawar  Singh,  who 
was  made  to  act  as  a  human  bomb  and  he  got  himself 
exploded  at  5.10  P.M  at  a  very  close  proximity  to 
to  the  Beant  Singh,  who  was  to  got  into  his  Car  for 
onward  journey. 

2.  As  per  prosecution  Shri  Beant  Singh,  has 
been  assassinated  pursuant  to  a  deep  rooted 
criminal  conspiracy  master  minded  by  Babbar  khalsa 
International,  an  International  Terrorist 
Organization  as  it  perceived  that  Shri  Beant  Singh 
has  usurped  the  power  after  1992  election  in  the 
State  of  Punjab  and  is  responsible  for  the 
indiscriminate  atrocities  against  the  innocent 
Sikhs.  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  all 
the  above  named  accused  persons  were  put  on  trial 
for  this  assassination  being  part  and  parcel  of  the 
well  laid  and  deep  rooted  conspiracy  for 
commission  of  the  of  offences  punishable  under 
sections  302,307  read  with  section  120-B  of  IPC  and 
under  section  3,4,  and  5  of  the  Explosive 
Substances  Act. 

3.  Initially,      a      case      FIR     No.  96,  dated 
31.8.1995,   was  registered  at  Police  Station,  North, 
now  Sector  3,   Chandigarh  for  commission  of  offences 
under  sections   302,    307   read  with  Section   120-B  of 
the   IPC   and   Section   3    &    4   of   Explosive  Substances 


4 


Act,  on  the  statement  of  C.Pala  Ram  of  Haryana 
Armed  Police.  However,  later  on  the  investigations 
of  this  case  was  transferred  to  Delhi  Special 
Police  Establishment  (C.B.I)  vide  Ministry  of  Home 
Affairs,  Government  of  India,  New  Delhi,  letter 
No. 406/JS (UT) /95/S  dated  31.8.1995  and  this  case 
was  re-registered  as  RC  No.9(S)/95- 

SIU. V/CBI/SIC . I I /New  Delhi  on  1.9.1995  under 
sections  302/307  read  with  Section  120-B  of  the 
Indian  Penal  Code  and  Section  3  &  4  of  the 
Explosive  Substance  Act. 


FACTUAL  BACKGROUND  OF  THE  CASE 


4 .  The   sequence  of  events   along  with  a  brief 

history  of  the  factual  back  ground,  which  preceded 
and  succeeded  the  assassination,  as  the  same  would 
unfurl  the  conspectus  of  the  case  and  leading  to 
the  registration  of  this  case  and  the  prosecution 
of  accused  persons,  in  brief,  is  that  a  case  vide 
FIR  No. 96/95  dated  31.8.1995  was  registered  at 
Police  Station  North,  Chandigarh  under  Section 
302/307/120-B  IPC  and  Section  3,  4  of  the  Explosive 
Substances  Act  on  the  statement  of  Constable  Pala 
Ram  of  Haryana  Armed  Police  to  the  effect  that  he 
was  on  sentry  duty  on  the  VIP  Gate  of  the  Punjab 
and  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat  Chandigarh,  in  the 
evening  of  31.8.1995.  HC  Ajaib  Singh  of  Haryana 
Police  and  some  other  personnel  of  Punjab  Police 
and   Punjab    Secretariat      were    also    on   duty   at  the 

5 


VIP  gate  along  with  him.  The  motor  cavalcade  of 
S.Beant  Singh,  then  CM  Punjab,  was  lined  up  in  the 
porch  at  about  5.05  p.m  under  the  security  cover  of 
Punjab  Police,   NSG  and  other  security  personnel. 

5.  S.Beant    Singh,    then    Chief   Minister,  came 

down  at  the  VIP  gate  at  about  5.10  p.m  accompanied 
by  security  personnel  and  some  other  persons.  Some 
of  the  security  personnel  took  position  in  their 
respective  vehicles.  As  soon  as  the  CM  Punjab  got 
into  his  car  parked  in  front  of  VIP  gate,  a 
powerful  bomb  explosion  took  place  as  a  result  of 
which  the  car  of  the  CM  Punjab  and  some  other  cars 
caught  fire.  The  CM  Punjab  and  several  security 
personnel  and  others  were  killed  on  the  spot  or 
sustained  injuries.  Constable  Pala  Ram  has  further 
stated  that  the  aforesaid  bomb  explosion  was  caused 
by     the     terrorists     with     the     object     of  killing 

5.  Beant  Singh  and  security  personnel  etc.  Pala  Ram 
has  further  stated  that  he  was  also  injured  in  the 
explosion  and  was  sent  to  P.G.I  Chandigarh  for 
treatment . 

6.  The  case  was  initially  investigated  by  the 
Police  of  U.T  of  Chandigarh.  Nanha  Ram,  SHO  P.S 
North  after  reaching  the  spot  along  with  other 
Police  parties,  inspected  the  spot  and  found  that 
the  car  in  which,  Shri  Beant  Singh,  Chief  Minister, 
was  sitting,  when  this  explosion  took  place,  was 
found   to   be   burnt   and  badly   damaged   and   the  dead 


6 


body  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh  was  found  in  a  badly 
charred  condition  at  the  back  seat  of  the  Car  No. 
PB-08-3469  and  the  remaining  cars  were  also 
damaged.  He  also  found  that  an  Ambassador  car 
bearing  registration  No.  DBA-9598,  was  found  to  be 
parked  at  some  distance  from  the  place  of 
occurrence  towards  the  side  of  Haryana  Secretariat 
and  was  lying  abandoned.  In  the  meanwhile  police 
photographs  and  Dr.Mishra  of  Forensic  Science 
Laboratory,  Punjab  also  reached  at  the  spot  and 
took  the  photographs  of  the  scene  of  crime  as  it 
exists  at  the  spot. 

7.  All  the  injured  lying  at  the  spot  were 
removed  to  the  various  hospitals  whereas  dead 
bodies  were  sent  to  various  hospital  for  postmortem 
examination.  Nanha  Ram  also  took  into  possession 
two  dismembered  legs  and  one  sundered  head  of  an 
unidentified  person  and  the  same  was  also  sent  to 
the  Hospital  for  examination. 

8.  As  a  result  of  bomb  explosion  it  was  found 
that  following  17  persons  were  killed: - 

1.  Sardar  Beant  Singh    (CM)    s/o  Captain  Hazura 
Singh,    r/o  H.No.45  Sector-2  Chandigarh 
(Chief       Minister  of  Punjab) 

2.  Shri   Yashpal   Bali    s/o   Hari   Ram  Bali  r/o 
H. No. 4001,    Sector  22  D  ,   Chandigarh    (PA  to 
Chief  Minister) 

3.  Shri    Kultar    Singh,    s/o    Shakti  Chand,r/o 


7 


Village  Jagroop  Distt.  Kangra  (HP),  (R- 
1,NSG)  . 

4.  Shri   Laxman  Das,    s/o  Ram  Lai,    No.  36/202, 
PAP    r/o      Mohalla      Khokhaonwala,  Badi 
Market,   near    Arya    Samaj    ,    Sanaur  Distt. 
Patiala . 

5.  Shri  Jagdish  Singh  Kutana,   ASI/PP  s/o  Teja 
Singh,    R/o   Village   Kutana    Sahib,  Distt. 
Ludhiana . 

6.  Swaran  Singh,    s/o  Hazura   Singh  r/o  3107, 
Sector     40-D     Chandigarh      (PA     to  Chief 
Minister) 

7.  Shri  Rajinder  Parsad  ,    s/o  Lachman  Lai  r/o 
Village    Barbali,    Distt.    Jkhalwarh  (Raj) 
(SI-  NSG) 

8.  Shri     Balbir     Singh     s/o     Jagna    Ram  r/o 
Village     Pipli     Distt.     Jhunjhunu  (Raj) 
(RI-NSG) . 

9.  Dr. Anil  Kumar  Duggal,    S/o  K.K.Duggal,  r/o 
H. No. 3313,    Sector  32  D  Chandigarh. 

10.  Shri  Tota  Ram  Sharma,    s/o  Chetram  Shafrma 
r/o    210-A,    Chandigarh  Village  Chenari,  PO 
Alra,         Simla    (Peon  in  the  Secretariat) . 

11.  Shri   Ajaib   Singh    ,    HC   No. 1/147,    HAP  s/o 
Gurmej     Singh    V&    PO    Sarawana,  Distt 
Yamuna       Nagar,  Haryana. 

12.  Shri    Jagdish    Singh    s/o    Dayal    Singh  r/o 
Village     Bhallan,      PS     Chamkaur  Sahib, 
Ropar    (Driver  of     Chief  Minister) 

13.  Shri  Mukhtiar  Singh  ,  ASI  Punjab  Police 
s/o  Late  Bhag  Singh  r/o  Village  Mahraj , 
PS  Phool  Distt. 

14.  Chamkaur     Singh     s/o     Jagdev     Singh  r/o 
Village     Gajjan    Majra,     Distt.  Sangrur. 


8 


(ASI  Punjab  Police) 

15.  Ranjodh   Singh   Mann   S/o   Nihal    Singh,  r/o 
Village  Majri,   P.S.   Payal,   Distt  Ludhiana. 

16.  Dhanwant  Singh  s/o  Inderjit  Singh,  Village 
Pandon,   Distt.  Ropar. 

17.  Baldev     Singh      s/o     Harnek     Singh  r/o 
H. No. 1223,         Gali  No. 12,    Gurunanak  Nagar, 
Patiala  assassin     was  also  killed  in  the 
blast . 

9.  Similarly,     it    was     also     found    that  the 

following  persons  sustained  injuries  in  this 
explosion : - 

1.  Manojit  Pal  Singh  s/o  Lachhmanpal . 

2.  Bakshish  Singh  s/o  Sardar  Singh  Constable 
No . 75/1027PAP     R/O     H. No. 564     Sector  6, 
Chandigarh . 

3.  Kulwant  Singh  s/o  Gurmail  Singh. 

4.  Kesar  Dumra  s/o  Telu  Ram. 

5.  SI  Amar  Singh  s/o  Tiku  Ram  CRPF. 

6.  Virender  Rana  s/o  Kewal  Singh. 

7.  HC  Manmohan  Singh  No. 80/75  PAP. 

8.  D.K.Tripathi  SP  CM  Security. 

9.  Satinder  Kumar,  driver. 

10.  Mahabir  Prasad. 

11.  Upkar  Singh. 

12.  Constable  Pala  Ram  No. 1/675  HAP. 


9 


13. 


Driver  Joginder  Singh. 


14  . 


Constable  Dhurba  Das  No. 941241661  B.Coy. 


15. 


Pushpinder  Kumar  S/0  Raj  Kumar. 


10  . 


As 


stated 


earlier, 


the 


further 


investigations 


thereafter    were    held    by  Central 


Bureau  of  Investigation  (C.B.I)  and  as  a  result  of 
the  investigations  and  the  evidence  collected  by 
the  C.B.I,  it  was  found  that  a  conspiracy  to 
assassinate  Sardar  Beant  Singh,  was  initially 
hatched  in  Pakistan  by  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal 
Singh  of  Babbar  Khalsa  International  and  the  other 
persons  namely  Manjinder  Singh  based  in  U.K., 
Harjit  Singh  based  in  U.S. A,  Resham  Singh  based  in 
Germany  along  with  the  present  accused  persons  and 
Dilawar  Singh  assassin  and  all  of  them  had  played 
active  part  in  the  enforcement  and  in  the  execution 
of  the  aforesaid  conspiracy  leading  to  the  killing 
of  Sardar  Beant  Singh. 

11.  As   per   the  prosecution,    the  investigation 

revealed  that  S.  Beant  Singh,  who  was  the  Chief 
Minister  of  Punjab  since  February,  1992  was 
assassinated  pursuant  to  the  deep  rooted  criminal 
conspiracy,  masterminded  by  Babbar  Khalsa 
International,  a  terrorist  organization.  The 
organization  was  founded  in  the  year  1978  by  Fauja 
Singh,  then  Head  of  Akhand  Kirtani  Jatha.  One  of 
the  Principal  objectives  of  this  organization  is  to 


10 


create  a  sovereign  Sikh  State  called  Khalistan  out 
of  the  territory  of  India.  Wadhwa  Singh  is  the 
Chief  of  this  terrorists  organization  since  last 
few  years  and  Mehal  Singh  is  one  of  his  important 
lieutenants.  This  terrorists  organization  plans  to 
achieve  the  aforesaid  objective  through  violent 
means  against  the  lawfully  established  authority. 
It  has  claimed  responsibility  for  the  targeted 
killing  of  several  important  public  functionaries 
both  of  the  govt  of  India  and  that  of  the  Govt  of 
Punjab,  in  last  few  years  for  achieving  their 
objective.  Babbar  Khalsa  International  has 
categorically  claimed  the  responsibility  for  the 
assassination  of  S.Beant  Singh  in  various 
communications  sent  to  the  news  paper  agencies. 

12.  According      to      the      perception      of  this 

terrorist  organization,  S.Beant  Singh  usurped  the 
power  after  1992  elections  in  the  State  of  Punjab 
despite  the  boycott  of  these  elections  by  several 
political  groups.  This  terrorists  organization 
holds  S.Beant  Singh  responsible  for  the 
indiscriminate  atrocities  against  innocent  Sikhs  in 
the  Punjab  and  countryside  as  also  for  the  illegal 
arrests,  tortures,  during  investigation  and 
elimination  of  the  detenees  in  fake  encounters. 
Babbar  Khalsa  International  has  also  claimed  that 
S.Beant  Singh  was  enemy  No .  1  of  Sikh  'Qaum'  and 
deserved  the  death  penalty.  It  has  also  threatened 
that   anyone   working   against   the    Sikh    'Qaum'  would 


11 


meet  the  same  fate  as  S.Beant  Singh.  It  has  also 
threatened  to  cause  assassination  of  top  level 
national  leaders  and  functionaries  of  the  State  of 
Punjab  to  pave  way  for  the  creation  of  'Khalistan'. 

13.  Accused  Wadhwa  Singh  son  of  Amar  Singh, 
R/o  Village  Sandhu  Chattha,  PS  Sadar,  Kapurthala, 
Punjab  and  Mehal  Singh  S/o  Jind  Singh  R/o  Village 
Dasuwal,  P.S  Valtoha  Distt.  Amritsar  (Pb)  are  both 
citizens  of  India.  Both  of  them  have  a  base  in 
Pakistan  and  are  indulging  in  anti  India  activities 
from  Pakistan.  They  have  also  been  clandestinely 
visiting  India  to  carry  out  the  terrorists 
activities  in  India  and  destablise  the  lawfully 
established  authority.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
s/o  Sher  Singh,  is  resident  of  Village,  Hawara 
Kalan,  P.S  Khamano,  Distt.  Fatehgarh  Sahib,  Punjab. 
He  is  a  hard-core  terrorist  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  and  has  been  assisting  Wadhwa  Singh 
and  Mehal  Singh  in  the  execution  of  their  violent 
activities  and  diabolical  plans.  He  has  been 
visiting  Pakistan  clandestinely  and  inducting  young 
boys  from  India  to  Pakistan  for  training  in  arms, 
ammunitions  and  explosives  to  carry  out  violent 
activities  in  India. 

14.  Accused  Balwant  Singh  s/o  Malkiat  Singh 
R/o  Village,  Rajoana  Kalan,  PS  Sudhar,  Distt., 
Ludhiana,  who  was  residing  at  that  time  in 
H.N0.68-A,    Rattan  Nagar,    Patiala,    was     a  Constable 


12 


of  Punjab  Police  since  01.10.1987.  He  remained 
posted  as  a  security  guard  to  Sh.Bhushan  Sirhindi, 
a  journalist  of  Patiala.  Accused  Gurmeet  Singh  S/o 
Jaswinder  Singh  is  R/o  H. No. 1431,  Gali  No. 14,  Guru 
Nanak  Nagar,  Patiala.  He  was  working  as  service 
engineer  in  BPL  Sanyo  at  Chandigarh  and  was  sharing 
a  rented  accommodation  with  his  friend  Satinder  Pal 
Singh  alias  Simpi  r/o  Patiala  at  H. No. 981,  Phase  4, 
Mohali,    Distt.  Ropar. 

15.  Accused,  Lakhwinder  Singh  S/o  Darshab 
Singh,  is  originally  R/o  H. No. 156,  Gali  No. 9,  Guru 
Nanak  Nagar , Patiala .  He  is  a  constable,  No. 409,  in 
the  Punjab  Police  since  7.6.1993.  At  the  time  of 
his  arrest  in  this  case,  he  was  working  as  a 
constable  driver  in  the  Intelligence  Branch  of 
Punjab  Police  and  was  sharing  a  rented 
accommodation  in  Village  Kansal  Distt.  Ropar  with 
Constable  Gurbachan  Singh. 

16.  Accused,  Dilawar  Singh  S/o  Harnek  Singh 
was  resident  of  H.  No.  1223,  Gali  No.  12  Guru  Nanak 
Nagar,  Patiala.  He  worked  as  a  Special  Police 
Officer  in  Distt.  Fatehgarh  Sahib  from  9.6.1993  to 
18.9.1994.   Thereafter,   he  was  dismissed. 

17.  Accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  were  good 
friends.  Accused  Paramjeet  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
(PO)  ,     Jagroop    Singh    and    Navjot    Singh    are  active 


13 


members  of  Akhand  Kirtani  Jatha  and  used  to  meet 
each  other  frequently  in  Samagams  held  at  various 
places  in  India  preceding  the  assassination  of 
S.Beant  Singh  and  were  intimate  to  each  other. 

18.  Accused  Paramjeet  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  were  found  to  be  involved  in  a  criminal  case 
registered  vide  FIR  No. 39/91  dated  23.6.1991  P.S 
Ropar  Distt.  Ropar  U/s  307,  148,  149  IPC  r/w 
25/54/59  of  Arms  Act  and  Section  3  of  TADA,  1987 
for  which  they  were  facing  trial  along  with  their 
other  associates. 

19.  Accused,  Nasib  Singh  is  resident  of 
Village  Jhingra  Kalan,  PS  Kurali  in  Ropar  Distt. 
His  house  was  frequently  visited  by  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  since  last  about  two  years  from  the 
date  of  occurrence  to  use  it  as  his  hide  out  and 
for  concealing  arms  and  explosives  in  his  house  for 
carrying  out  the  plans  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International.  Accused  Navjot  Singh  and  Jagroop 
Singh  are  neighbours  in  Mohali  township.  Accused 
Gurmeet  Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh  and 
Balwant  Singh  had  definite  leaning  towards  Babbar 
Khalsa  International. 

20.  During  the  period  November,  1994  to 
August,  1995  accused  persons  namely  Wadhwa  Singh, 
Mehal  Singh,  Paramjeet  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Jagrup      Singh,       Balwant      Singh,       Dilawar  Singh, 


14 


Shamsher  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh,  Nasib  Singh,  Navjot  Singh  and 
others  unknown  entered  into  a  criminal  conspiracy 
at  various  places  in  India/Pakistan  with  the  object 
of  committing  the  assassination  of  S.Beant  Singh, 
then  Chief  Minister  of  Punjab. 

21.  During    investigations,    it    was    found  that 

the  following  acts  of  commission  and  omission  were 
committed  by  the  aforesaid  accused  persons  in 
pursuance  of  the  said  criminal  conspiracy: - 

(i)  Accused  Wadhwa  Singh,  Mehal  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  some  time  in 
November,  1994  at  Lahore,  agreed  to 
assassinate  S.Beant  Singh,  the  Chief 
Minister  of  Punjab,  as  he  was  an  enemy  of 
Sikh  Panth  and  had  given  free  hand  to  the 
Punjab  Police  to  kill  the  Sikhs  and,  thus 
was   coming   in   the   way   of   the   creation  of 

'Khalistan'.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
assured  Wadhwa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  that 
he  would  definitely  organize  the  killing 
of  S.Beant  Singh  for  which  arms  and 
explosives  and  monetary  support  was 
reguired.  Wadhwa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 
agreed  to  provide  the  same. 

(ii)  Accused  Wadhwa  singh,  Mehal  Singh 
and      Jagtar      Singh      Hawara      decided  to 


15 


execute  the  killing  of  S.Beant  Singh  by 
using  some  one  to  act  as  a   'human  bomb' . 

(iii)  Accused  Wadhwa  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  motivated  persons,  who  might 
be  willing  to  offer  themselves  for  being 
used  as,  'Human  Bomb'  for  the 
assassination  of  S.Beant  Singh. 

(iv)  In  the  month  of  May/June,  1995, 
accused  Dilawar  Singh  hired  a  one  room 
accommodation  at  a  secluded  place  in 
Village  Ratoli,  Tehsil  Rajgarh,  Distt. 
Sirmour,  HP  from  one  Joginder  Singh  s/o 
Santu  Ram.  Accused  Dilawar  Singh  Balwant 
Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  other  used  to 
meet  there. 

(v)  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  contacted 
Shamsher  Singh  s/o  Surjit  Singh  R/o 
Village  Ukasi  Jattan,  Distt  Patiala,  some 
time  in  June,  1995  and  joined  him  in  the 
conspiracy . 

(vi)  In  July,  1995  accused  Paramjeet 
Singh  introduced  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  to 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  New  Delhi,  who  was 
working  as  a  driver  of  Mohan  Raj  Shekher 
R/o  B-4/III,  Safdarjung  Enclave,  New 
Delhi    and    told    him    that    accused  Jagtar 


16 


Singh  Hawara  is  a  member  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  and  had  returned  from 
Pakistan.  Paramjeet  Singh  requested 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  to  help  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  in  the  'task'  for  which  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  agreed. 

(vii)  Later  on,  in  the  same  month  i.e 
July,  1995  Paramjeet  Singh,  Navjot  Singh 
and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  met  Jagrup  Singh 
at  his  house  in  Mohali,  Paramjeet  Singh 
told  them  that  S.Beant  Singh  then  CM 
Punjab  and  KPS  Gill  DGP  Punjab  were  to  be 
killed,  as  they  were  responsible  for  the 
killing  of  several  jathedars  in  false 
encounters.  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  assured 
the  availability  of  arms  and  explosives 
for  this  purpose  and  all  the  aforesaid 
agreed  to  the  said  plan. 

(viii)  Around  10th  August,  1995  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Shamsher  Singh  engaged 
Truck  No.  PB12-A-7947  of  Sapinder  Singh 
alias  Pappu  (Shamsher 's  cousin)  from 
Village  Lalroo  and  in  the  said  Truck  they 
went  to  a  place  near  Ajnala  in  Amritsar 
Distt.  close  to  Indo-Pak  border  and  from 
there  brought  two  bags  full  of 
explosives.  The  said  bags  were  brought  in 
the   said  truck  to  village  Ukasi.  Shamsher 


17 


Singh  &  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  concealed 
these  bags  in  the  house  of  Shamsher  Singh 
in  village  Ukasi  Jattan,   Distt.  Patiala. 

(ix)  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  brought 
a  big  sack  on  a  Scooter  from  the  house  of 
Shamsher  Singh  in  village  Ukasi  Jattan  to 
the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  in 
village  Jhingran  Kalan,  P.S.Kurali, 
Distt.  Ropar.  The  said  big  sack  contained 
two  ' kattas '  containing  explosives  and 
remote  control  devices  etc.  Accused  Nasib 
Singh  at  the  behest  of  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  concealed  the  said  explosives  etc 
in  his  house. 

(x)  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  purchased  a  steel  grey  colour 
Ambassador  Car  No.DBA-9598  on  20.8.1995 
for  Rs.32,000/-  from  Smt . Reva  Dutta,  w/o 
Shri  S.K. Dutta,  r/o  Paschim  Vihar,  New 
Delhi,  to  be  used  in  the  commission  of 
the  crime.  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  had  falsely 
signed  the  delivery  note  of  the  said  car 
as  Basant  Singh.  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
brought  car  no.DBA-9598  to  the  house 
No.B-50,  Vishwakarma  Park,  Laxmi  Nagar, 
Shakarpur,  Delhi  of  Paramjit  Singh. 
Paramjit  Singh  kept  the  said  car  at  his 
house    from   20th   August    to    the   morning  of 


18 


24th  August,  1995. 


(xi)  On  23.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
telephonically  sent  a  coded  message  to 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  at  the  residence  of 
Shri  Mohan  Raj  Shekhar,  his  employer,  to 
reach  Punjabi  University,  Patiala  on  the 
next  day  with  the  said  car. 

(xii)  On  24.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
along  with  Paramjeet  Singh  left  Delhi  by 
Car  No.  DBA-9598  and  reached  Punjabi 
University,  Patiala,  where  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  met 
them.  They  decided  that  the  next  meeting 
would  be  held  in  Gurdwara  Dukh  Nivaran  at 
7.00  a.m  next  day  i.e  25.8.1995. 

(xiii)  On  25.8.1995,  Paramjeet  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  reached  Gurudwara  Dukh 
Nivaran,  Patiala,  in  Car  No.  DBA-9598, 
where  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Balwant  Singh 
and  Dilawar  Singh  were  already  present. 
Thereafter  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Paramjeet 
Singh,  Balwant  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
and  Dilawar  Singh  left  Patiala  in  Car  No. 
DBA-9598  and  reached  Village  Jhingra 
Kalan,  P.S.  Kurali,  Distt.  Ropar.  They 
collected  two  bags  containing  remote 
control      devices,       electric      wires  and 


19 


explosives  (RDX)  etc  from  the  house  of 
Nasib  Singh,  where  they  were  earlier  kept 
by  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

(xiv)  Thereafter ,  on  the  same  day  i.e 
25.8.1995,  all  of  them  reached  H. No. 981, 
Phase  4,  Mohali  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
where  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  kept  some  of 
the  explosive  materials  out  of  the 
aforesaid  two  bags . 

(xv)  Then,  all  of  them  i.e  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara,  Paramjit  Singh,  Balwant 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  &  Dilawar  Singh 
went  to  H. No. 243,  Phase  7,  Mohali  of 
Jagrup  Singh,  where  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Paramjeet  Singh,  kept  the  remote 
control  devices  and  the  remaining 
explosive  materials. 

(xvi)  On  26.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
asked  Paramjeet  Singh  to  contact  Dilawar 
Singh,  (assassin),  and  get  the  car  No. 
DBA-9598  painted  'off  white'  to  give  it  a 
look  of  an  official  car.  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh 
(assassin)  and  one  other,  took  the  car 
No.  DBA-9598,  to  the  shop  No. 24,  Sector 
7,  Chandigarh  of  Shri  Surendra  Sharma  and 
delivered  it   for  painting  it    'off  white'. 


20 


Lakhwinder  Singh  paid  advance  of 
Rs.1500/-  and  they  insisted  that  the  car 
should  be  ready  by  29.8.1995  or  latest  by 
30.8.1995. 

(xvii)  On    27th   or    28thAugust,  1995,  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  got  the  waist  of  a  khaki 
colour     pant      loosened     by     Anil  Kumar, 
tailor,    for  use  by  Dilawar  Singh. 

(xviii)  On  28.8.1995  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Balwant  Singh,  who  was  in  Police 
uniform,  brought  one  stengun,  one 
pistol,  some  magazines  and  cartridges  and 
many  sets  of  Punjab  Police  uniforms 
contained  in  a  big  black  colour  bag,  in  a 
blue  Maruti  van  and  kept  the  same  in  the 
house  of  Jagrup  Singh. 

(xix)  On  28.8.1995,  in  the  evening, 
accused  Dilawar  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  Gurmeet  Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh  met  in  the  room  of 
Gurmeet  Singh  located  at  house  No.  981, 
Phase  IV,  Mohali,  which  Gurmeet  was 
sharing  with  his  friend  Satinder  Pal 
Singh  @  Simpi  and  remained  there 
throughout  the  night. 

(xx)  During      the      night      of  28.8.1995 


21 


Gurmeet  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Balwant  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  while  at  the  aforesaid 
room  of  Gurmeet  Singh,  mixed  up  RDX  with 
other  materials  on  newspaper  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  belt  bomb  and  made  a 
belt-bomb . 

(xxi)  On  29.8.1995,  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Jagrup  Singh 
and  Paramjit  Singh  concealed  the  remote 
control  devices,  explosives  and  wires  etc 
in  the  cavity  of  the  harmonium  brought  by 
Jagrup  Singh.  The  aforesaid  materials  had 
been  brought  by  the  aforesaid  accused 
persons  to  the  house  of  Jagrup  Singh  on 
25.8.1995.  The  said  harmonium  was  kept  in 
the  house  of  Jagrup  Singh.  Further,  the 
aforesaid  accused  concealed  the  remaining 
firearms  and  explosives  in  two  tubes  and 
a  plastic  cover.  Thereafter  Navjot  Singh 
took  the  above  material  to  his  house  at 
H. No. 889,  Phase  3-B-2  along  with  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
concealed  it  there. 

(xxii)  In  the  evening  of  29.8.1995 
accused  Dilawar  and  Balwant  Singh  went  to 
the  shop  of  Surinder  Sharma  on  the 
scooter     of     Lakhwinder     Singh     and  they 


22 


asked  for  the  Car.  But  the  car  was  not 
ready  at  that  time.  Surinder  Sharma  told 
them  that  the  car  would  be  delivered  on 
the  next  day  i.e  30.8.1995. 

(xxiii)  In  the  forenoon  of  30.8.1995n 
accused  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh 
again  went  to  the  shop  of  Surender  Sharma 
on  Scooter  No.  PCP  2085  belonging  to 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  for  taking 
delivery  of  the  car  DBA-9598,  Since  the 
car  was  not  yet  ready,  both  of  them 
waited  there.  Later,  in  the  afternoon 
when  the  painting  work  was  about  to  be 
complete,  Balwant  Singh  left  on  the 
scooter  and  came  back  to  the  shop  after 
sometime  with  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maula  after 
collecting  the  Khaki  pant  from  Lakhwinder 
Singh.  The  pant  was  taken  out  of  the 
dickey  of  the  scooter  and  handed  over  to 
Dilawar  Singh.  The  Scooter  was  given  to 
Maula.  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh 
took  delivery  of  the  car  and  made  the 
balance  payment  of  Rs.1500/-. 

(xxiv)  After  taking  delivery  of  the  car 
on  30.81.995  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Dilawar 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant 
Singh  left  for  the  Punjab  &  Haryana  Civil 
Secretariat,     Chandigarh,    by    the    car  No. 


23 


DBA-9598,  at  about  4/4.30  p.m,  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  was  driving  the  Car.  Dilawar 
Singh  was  wearing  police  uniform.  Accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  got  down  from  car  on 
the  way.  The  remaining  three  accused 
reached  the  Secretariat  and  found  that 
S.Beant  Singh  had  already  left  the 
Secretariat.  They  returned  back  to  Mohali 
and  while  coming  back,  accused  Dilawar 
unstrapped  the  belt  bomb  from  his  waist. 

(xxv)  On  the  night  of  30.8.1995,  Dilawar 
Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  took  the  car  No. 
DBA-9598  to  the  house  No. 3031/1,  Sector 
45,  Chandigarh  and  stayed  there  for  the 
night  with  Chamkaur  Singh  brother  of 
Dilawar  Singh. 

(xxvi)  Before  leaving  the  house  in  the 
morning  of  31.8.1995,  Dilawar  Singh 
cautioned  his  brother  Chamkaur  Singh  to 
leave  Chandigarh  immediately  as  he  was 
going  to  do  something  big  for  which 
police  would  torture  and  kill  him. 

(xxvii)  In  the  morning  of 
31 . 8 . 1995, accused  Dilawar  Singh  and 
Balwant  Singh  left  the  house  of  Chamkaur 
Singh  in  Car  No.  DBA-9598  and  while  they 
were    leaving    the    house,    Lakhwinder  Singh 


24 


and  Gurmeet  Singh  also  joined  them. 

(xxviii)  Thereafter,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
and  Balwant  Singh  went  to  the  Secretariat 
on  a  Scooter.  Lakhwinder  Singh  met  them 
there  and  told  them  that  S.Beant  Singh 
had  not  yet  reached  the  Secretariat. 
After  that  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  went  to  the  bungalow  of  S.Beant 
Singh  to  ascertain  his  whereabouts  and 
learnt  that  the  Chief  Minister  was 
present  in  his  bungalow. 

(xxix)  At  about  12  noon,  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  and  Balwant  Singh  again  went  to  the 
Secretariat  from  where  they  went  to 
Village  Kansal  to  enquire  about 
Lakhwinder  Singh.  They  could  not  meet 
Lakhwinder  Singh  there.  Then  both  of  them 
again  came  back  to  the  Secretariat. 
After  some  time  Lakhwinder  Singh  also 
joined  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  at  the  Secretariat  premises.  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  and  Balwant  Singh  stayed  in 
the  Secretariat  premises  area  and  waited 
for  the  arrival  of  S.Beant  Singh. 

(xxx)  At  about  1.30  p.m  s.Beant  Singh, 
Chief  Minister  Punjab,  reached  the 
Secretariat,       Jagtar       Singh       Tara  and 


25 


Balwant  Singh  immediately  left  the 
Secretariat  on  the  Scooter  for  House 
No. 981,  Phase-4,  Mohali  of  Gurmeet  Singh. 
On  way  to  the  house  of  Gurmeet  Singh, 
they  collected  Car  No.  DBA-9598  from 
their  hideout  and  one  of  them  drove  the 
said  car  to  the  aforesaid  house  of 
Gurmeet  Singh.  After  reaching  the  house 
of  Gurmeet  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
Balwant  Singh  informed  Dilawar  Singh 
(assassin)  and  Gurmeet  Singh  that  S.Beant 
Singh  had  reached  Secretariat.  Balwant 
Singh  asked  Dilawar  Singh  to  get  ready 
for  the  task.  Dilawar  Singh  strapped  the 
bomb-belt  around  his  waist.  Gurmeet  Singh 
checked  up  the  electric  connections  of 
the  belt-bomb  to  ensure  that  they  were  in 
working  order.  Dilawar  Singh  (assassin) 
dressed  up  in  police  uniform  concealing 
the  belt-bomb  underneath  it. 

(xxxi)  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Dilawar 
Singh  left  the  house  of  Gurmeet  Singh  for 
the  Secretariat  in  Car  No.  DBA-9598  for 
the  'task'  Accused  Balwant  Singh  followed 
them  on  his  Scooter  No . PB-11-1 955  .  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  was  driving  the  car  and 
Dilawar  Singh  had  occupied  the  front 
seat.  They  reached  the  Secretariat  at 
about    3.00    P.M   and   parked    the    car    at  a 


26 


short  distance  from  the  VIP  gate.  Balwant 
Singh  also  joined  accused  Dilawar  Singh 
and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  the  Car.  After 
some  time,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  left  the 
Secretariat  leaving  behind  Dilawar  Singh 
and  Balwant  Singh  in  the  Car. 

(xxxii)  Accused  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  were  in  the  car  awaiting  the 
departure  of  S.Beant  Singh  from  Punjab 
Secretariat.  They  had  waited  as  per  the 
plan  for  assassinating  the  Chief 
Minister,  Punjab  at  the  VIP  gate  of  the 
Secretariat . 

(xxxiii)  Accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was 
also  present  in  the  close  vicinity  of 
Punjab  and  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat 
around  5.00p.m  on  31.8.1995. 

(xxxiv)  At  about  5.10  p.m,  S.Beant  Singh 
came  down  to  the  VIP  gate  surrounded  by 
his  security  personnel  and  others  and 
when  he  got  into  car  No.  PB-08-3469, 
accused  Dilawar  Singh  was  seen 
approaching  the  Chief  Minister's  car  and 
immediately  there  was  a  huge  explosion  in 
which  the  CM's  Car  and  some  other  cars  in 
the  motorcade  caught  fire  and  entire  are 
was    engulfed    in    a    dark    of    dense  smoke. 


27 


S.Beant  Singh 
named  above 
explosion  and 
were  injured. 


and  seventeen 
died  as 
15  person 


other  persons 
a     result  of 
s    named  above 


22.  Similarly       the        investigation  further 

revealed  that  during  the  investigations  two 
dismembered  legs  and  one  damaged  head  of 
unidentified  person  was  examined  by  Dr.Inderjit 
Diwan  of  P.G.I,  who  opined  that  both  the  legs 
belong  to  the  same  individual  and  they  have  been 
severed  just  above  the  knees  by  a  blast,  which  has 
created  a  big  lacerated  wound  at  the  upper  ends  of 
both  the  legs  because  of  an  explosive  device  and  he 
also  advised  a  D.N. A  test  to  confirm  the  identity 
of  the  persons.  Similarly,  the  swabs  taken  from  the 
dismembered  legs  and  heads  were  sent  to  CFSL, 
Chandigarh  and  they  have  confirmed  the  presence  of 
RDX  on  the  above  dismembered  parts  of  the 
unidentified  persons.  During  the  investigations, 
Harnek  Singh,  father  of  the  assassin  Dilawar  Singh, 
identified  the  legs  and  head  in  question  being  of 
his  son  Dilawar  Singh.  Dr.  Lalji  Singh  of  Central 
for  Cellular  and  Molecular  Biology  Hyderabad,  took 
the  blood  samples  of  Harnek  Singh,  Smt .  Harjit  Kaur 
and  Chamkaur  Singh,  father,  mother  and  brother 
respectively  of  Dilawar  Singh  and  also  the  samples 
from  the  dismembered  legs  and  head  found  at  the 
place  of  occurrence  and  after  conducting  the  DNA 
profile    and    examination    concluded    that    both  the 


28 


legs  and  head  belongs  to  the  one  and  the  same 
individual  and  that  the  said  individual  is 
biological  off-spring  of  Smt.Surjit  Kaur  and  Shri 
Harnek  Singh  and  since  Shri  Dilawar  Singh  is  the 
only  missing  son  of  Smt.Harjit  Kaur  and  Shri  Harjit 
Singh,  the  remnant  is  that  of  assassin  Dilawar 
Singh.  In  this  way  the  identity  of  assassin  has 
been  firmly  established  as  being  Dilawar  Singh  s/o 
Harnek  Singh,    resident  of  Patiala. 

23.  Similarly,  as  per  the  spot  inspection  by 
the  experts  and  specially  by  Lt.Col.  Manik 
Sabharwal,  an  expert  of  Explosive  cases,  the 
explosion  took  place  at  a  distance  of  about  1  to  2 
meters  from  the  left  rear  door  of  the  car  No.  PB- 
08-3469  in  which  Shri  Beant  Singh,  then  CM  was 
sitting  and  that  the  seat  of  the  explosion  was 
above  the  ground  level  and  it  has  been  caused  by  a 
explosive  device  strapped  on  the  torso  of  a  suicide 
bomber  or  a  human  bomb  and  that  is  why  after  the 
explosion  the  swearing  of  his  head  and  legs  and 
total  extermination  of  the  torso  has  taken  place. 

24.  The  sequence  of  events  accusing  the 
accused  persons  being  part  and  parcel  of  the 
conspiracy  leading  to  the  murder  of  Beant  Singh, 
after  the  commission  of  the  crime  till  their  arrest 
and  the  act  and  conduct  of  the  accused  persons 
after  the  commission  of  the  crime  till  their  arrest 
reveals   that   on   10.9.1995    ,    Scooter  No.  PB-11-1955 


29 


of  Balwant  Singh  was  recovered  from  Pritam  Cycle 
Stand,  Patiala.  From  the  dicky  of  the  Scooter,  an 
unused  belt  made  of  cloth  meant  for  making  the 
belt-bomb  was  also  recovered.  Accused,  Balwant 
Singh  has  been  absconding  ever  since  the 
assassination  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh. 

25.  Accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  met  Dalbir  Singh 
@  Maula  on  2.9.1995  in  Village  Kansal  and  told  him 
that  the  planning  of  the  bomb  blast  was  made  by 
him,  Balwant  Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  wherein  Dilawar  Singh  attained  martyrdom. 
Lakhwinder  Singh  had  also  confided  in  Dalbir  @ 
Maula  that  Ambassador  Car  No.  DBA-9598,  regarding 
which  the  news  had  appeared  in  the  newspaper,  was 
the  same  which  was  got  painted  from  Shri  Surender 
Sharma,  painter  and  delivered  to  Dilawar  Singh  and 
Balwant  Singh. 

26.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  reached  Delhi 
and  told  Jaswinder  Singh  and  Baldev  Singh  that  the 
car  used  in  S. Beant  Singh  assassination,  was 
purchased  by  him  and  his  friend  from  Paschim  Vihar, 
Delhi.  He  also  told  them  that  he  and  his  friend 
Paramjit  Singh  had  reached  Chandigarh  via  Punjab  on 
25.8.1995.  He  further  confided  in  them  that  he  had 
driven  accused  Dilawar  Singh  in  the  ambassador  car 
on  31.8.1995  to  the  Punjab  &  Haryana  Secretariat, 
when  Dilawar  Singh  was  in  police  uniform  and 
eguipped    with     a     belt     bomb.     He     also     told  his 


30 


brothers  that  Dilawar  Singh  had  killed  S.Beant 
Singh  by  causing  the  bomb  explosion. 

27.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  has  made  a 
confessional  statement  before  Special  Judicial 
Magistrate,  Punjab,  Patiala  on  22.9.1995  in  which 
he  has  admitted  his  own  involvement  in  the 
assassination  and  also  the  involvement  of  other 
accused, namely  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Paramjit  Singh, 
Balwant  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Navjot  Singh  and  Jagrup  Singh.  He 
has  given  vivid  details  of  various  overt  acts  done 
by  the  aforesaid  accused  persons  pursuant  to  the 
criminal  conspiracy  to  kill  S.Beant  Singh, 
conseguent  to  which  Dilawar  Singh  acted  as  human 
bomb  on  31.8.1995. 

28.  During  the  course  of  investigation, 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh  were 
arrested  at  Chandigarh  on  5.9.1995.  Accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  was  arrested  in  Delhi  on  13.9.1995.  A 
cyanide  capsule  was  also  recovered  from  his 
possession  at  the  time  of  arrest.  Accused  Navjot 
Singh  was  arrested  on  18.9.1995  at  Village  Jhingra 
Kalan.  The  Scooter  No.  PCP-2085  of  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  which  he  was  driving  at  the  time  of  his 
arrest,   was  also  seized. 

29.  Accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  taken  on  Police 
custody  remand  from  6.9.1995  to  19.9.1995.   While  in 


31 


custody,  he  made  a  disclosure  statement  on  8.9.1995 
u/s  27  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act  to  the  effect 
that  S.Beant  Singh  was  killed  by  Dilawar  Singh  by 
using  a  belt-bomb,  which  was  prepared  in  his  room. 
On  the  pointing  out  of  Gurmeet  Singh,  newspaper 
pieces  on  which  the  RDX  etc  was  mixed,  polythene 
bag,  cardboard  strip  and  cardboard  boxes  containing 
the  traces  of  RDX  and  the  particles  of  the 
explosive  materials  found  on  the  floor  of  his  room 
were  taken  into  possession. 

30.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  made  a 
disclosure  statement  on  18.9.1995  to  the  effect 
that  he  along  with  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Dilawar 
Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and  Paramjit  Singh  had  gone  to 
village  Jhingran  Kalan  on  25.8.1995  from  where 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  had  collected  explosives  and 
the  remaining  explosives  were  still  lying  in  the 
said  house.  He  promised  to  point  out  that  house  in 
the  village  Jhingra  Kalan,  where  explosives  are 
still  concealed.  Consequently,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
was  taken  to  that  village,  who  pointed  out  the 
house  of  Nasib  Singh. 

31.  Nasib  Singh  was  arrested  on  18.9.1995  and 
while  in  police  custody  he  made  a  disclosure 
statement  that  the  explosives,  which  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  had  concealed  in  his  house  and  out  of  which 
some  explosives,  he  (Hawara)  had  taken  away  on 
25.8.1995,   was  lying  concealed  in  a  room  underneath 


32 


a  heap  of  straw  which  he  could  point  out  and  get 
recovered.  On  the  pointing  of  Nasib  Singh,  RDX 
weighing  about  13.700  kgs  was  recovered  on 
18.9.1995  from  Nasib  Singh's  house. 

32.  During  investigation,  Scooter  No.  DL-5SF- 
0318  in  the  name  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  s/o  Sadhu 
Singh  was  seized  from  Kamaljit  Singh  @  Kala  on 
22.10.1995.  The  aforesaid  Scooter  had  been  financed 
by  accused  Paramjit  Singh. 

33.  Accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  arrested  on 
5.9.1995,  while  he  was  traveling  on  a  scooter  NO. 
PCP  2085,  in  Chandigarh.  On  his  personal  search 
along  with  other  articles,  a  torn  receipt  memo 
No.  13414  was  recovered.  On  the  back  of  it  was 
written  "I  want  death  only,  first  CM  Punjab  you 
know,  then  PM" .  The  writing  is  in  the  hand  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh.  The  house  search  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  at  Village  Kansal  also 
revealed  bank  deposits  of  Rs.3.85  lacs  with  Bank  of 
Punjab  Ltd.,  Chandigarh. 

34.  House  search  of  accused  Navjot  Singh  was 
conducted  on  17.9.1995  during  which  his  personal 
diary  and  some  loose  sheets  were  recovered.  Accused 
Navjot  Singh  has  recorded  in  his  own  hand  "water 
will  not  flow  in  SYL  Canal.  Only  blood  of  Beant 
Singh  (Singh  struck  off)  and  KPS  along  with  their 
corrupt    colleagues    will    flow    in    SYL    canal  along 


33 


with  blood  of  Bhajan  Lai"  Apart  from  the  above,  a 
manuscript  in  the  hand  writing  of  Navjot  Singh  was 
also  recovered  from  his  house  which,  inter  alia, 
states  that  "The  People  of  India  and  the  Govt,  of 
India  i.e  the  Govt,  of  thieves  and  black  marketeers 
should  not  rejoice  that  peace  has  come  to  Punjab 
through  their  puppet  Govt.  i.e  Beant  Singh  the 
'smuggler'  who  along  with  killer  DGP  i.e  Gill  is 
killing  the  Sikh  youths  in  fake  encounters  and 
looting  the  people  of  Punjab  through  black  cats. 
These  same  very  cats  were  mixed  in  militant  ranks 
to  defame  the  Sikh  struggle  and  to  eliminate 
Jathedars  which  they  did  successfully  but  this  will 
not  happed  now" . 

35.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  had  parked 
Ambassador  Car  No.  DBA-9598  near  the  VIP  gate  of 
the  Secretariat  on  31.8.1995.  During  the  search  of 
the  Car,  a  couplet  in  Punjabi  in  the  hand  writing 
of  Balwant  Singh  was  recovered,  which  when 
translated  into  English  says  that  "my  comrades  died 
n  the  hope  that  I  share  their  griefs/but  if  I  keep 
quite  and  do  not  say  anything  then  their  Souls 
would  not  rest  in  peace  and  would  constantly  haunt 
me.  " 

36.  From  the  aforesaid  car,  Chance  Finger 
prints  were  lifted  by  the  experts  of  CFSL,  New 
Delhi.  Vide  their  Report  No.  CFSL-95/A/847-44-1 
dated    30.10.1995,        the    CFSL    has    opined    that  a 


34 


chance  print  developed  and  photographed  from  the 
rear  view  mirror  of  the  car  is  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh. 

37.  Search  was  also  conducted  in  the  house  of 
Balwant  Singh  in  Patiala,  on  5.9.1995  in  which  a 
diary  and  Babbar  Khalsa  International  letter  heads 
were  recovered.  In  the  last  page,  there  is  a  pen 
sketch  which  purports  to  be  of  the  Punjab  &  Haryana 
Secretariat  along  with  the  sketch  of  a  commando 
looking  person. 

38.  House  No. 1223,  Gali  No. 12,  Gurunanak 
Nagar,  Patiala  of  Dilawar  Singh,  was  searched  on 
5.9.1995  in  which  a  small  booklet  on  Shaheed  Bhagat 
Singh  was  recovered.  In  one  side  of  the  last  title 
page,  a  pen  sketch  is  drawn  which  purports  to  be  a 
belt-bomb  with  detonator  device. 

39.  Similarly,  some  more  facts,  which 
fortifies  the  commission  of  the  offence  by  the 
accused  persons  found  during  the  investigations, 
were  that  after  the  blast  on  31.8.1995,  office  of 
the  UNI,  New  Delhi,  received  a  fax  message  on  the 
same  night  issued  and  signed  by  accused  Wadhwa 
Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  on  the  letter  head  of  Babbar 
Khalsa  International.  The  fax  message  conveyed  that 
Babbar  Khalsa  International  owned  the 
responsibility  for  killing  S.Beant  Singh.  Another 
fax    message    was    received    in    the    same    Office  on 


35 


6.9.1995  under  the  signatures  and  name  of  accused 
Mehal  Singh,  also  bearing  the  name  of  accused 
Wadhwa  Singh.  It  is  also  on  a  similar  letter  head 
of  Babbar  Khalsa  International  and  spells  out  the 
jurisdiction  and  rationale  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  behind  the  killing  of  S.Beant  Singh. 

40.  On  2.9.1995,  a  fax  message  was  received  in 
the  office  of  Hind  Samachar  Group,  Jalandhar  on  a 
similar  letter  head  of  Babbar  Khalsa  International 
signed  by  Wadhwa  Singh,  wherein  he  has  claimed  the 
responsibility  for  the  killing  S.Beant  Singh  and 
given  a  call  to  the  people  of  Punjab  to  fight 
against  the  Govt.  of  India  for  the  cause  of 
' Khalistan ' . 

41.  Another  fax  message  was  received  in  the 
office  of  Hind  Samachar  Group,  Jallandhar  on 
7.9.1995  on  the  letter  head  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  signed  by  Wadhwa  Singh,  wherein  it  is 
reiterated  that  the  organisation  is  behind  the 
killing  of  S.Beant  Singh.  The  signatures  on  the 
aforesaid  fax  message  have  been  proved  to  be  of 
Wadhwa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  by  the  Independent 
witnesses . 

42.  All  the  incriminating  articles  collected 
from  the  scene  of  crime  including  cloth  pieces 
taken  into  possession  from  the  car  of  Sardar  Beant 
Singh,  some  partly  burnt  pieces  of  clothes  lying 
here     and     there     debris,     metallic     nails,  wooden 


36 


pieces,  human  jaw,  dori,  rubber  pipe,  keys,  space, 
watch  etc.  were  sent  to  CFSL  Chandigarh  for 
technical  examination  and  after  the  various 
technical  tests  RDX  was  detected  on  various  cloth 
pieces,  fleshy  material,  debris,  burnt  pieces  of 
sponge,  human  jaw,  metallic  frame,  clothes  taken 
from  the  rear  seat  of  the  car  of  Sardar  Beant 
Singh,  etc.  Similarly  traces  of  another  explosive 
known  as  PETN  were  also  detected  on  the  swabs  taken 
from  the  heads  and  legs  of  the  assassin. 

43.  The  articles  purporting  to  contain  traces 
of  RDX  recovered  from  the  house  of  Gurmeet  Singh  on 
8.9.1995  were  also  sent  to  CFSL,  Chandigarh  for 
examination.  CFSL,  Chandigarh,  vide  its  report 
No. 989/95  dated  27.9.1995  opined  that  RDX  was 
detected  on  the  polythene  bag,  brown  coloured 
cardboard  boxes,  cardboard  strips,  pieces  of 
newspaper  and  particles  purported  to  have  been 
lifted  from  the  floor  of  the  room  of  Gurmeet  Singh. 

44.  On  completion  of  investigation,  accused 
Wadhawa  Singh,  Mehal  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Paramjit  Singh,  Balwant  Singh,  Jagroop  Singh  and 
Shamsher  Singh  have  been  found  absconding  since  the 
aforesaid  occurrence  and  as  such  after  obtaining 
the  necessary  sanction  as  required  u/s  188  of  the 
Cr.P.C  against  absconding  accused  Wadhawa  Singh, 
Mehal  Singh  and  sanction  for  prosecution  under  the 
provisions   of  Explosives  Act,    a     charge   sheet  no .  6 


37 


of  1995  was  filed  against  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
@  Mita,  Lakhwinder  Singh  @  Lakha,  Jagtar  Singh  @ 
Tara  (now  P.O)  Navjot  Singh  and  Nasib  Singh.  Vide 
order  dated  11.12.1995  Shri  Shekhar  Dhawan  then 
Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  committed  the  charge 
sheet  to  the  court  of  Sessions. 

45.  During  the  pendency  of  the  proceedings 
before  the  Sessions  Judge,  Chandigarh  it  was  found 
that  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh  has  been  arrested 
and  accordingly  a  supplementary  challan  no.6-A  of 
1995  was  filed  against  accused  Shamsher  Singh 
inter-alia  alleging  that  being  part  and  parcel  of 
the  conspiracy,  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh,  at  the 
behest  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  arranged 
Truck  No.  PB-12-A-7947  belonging  to  his  cousin 
Sapinder  Singh.  Thereafter , both  of  them  on  or  about 
10.8.1995  used  that  Truck  and  brought  two  bags  of 
RDX  from  a  place  near  Village  Ajnala,  Distt 
Amritsar  near  the  Indo  Pak  border,  in  pursuance  of 
their  conspiracy  to  execute  their  target  and  the 
same  was  kept  concealed  in  the  house  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  in  Village  Ukasi  Jattan,  Distt 
Patiala . 

46.  Later  on  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
removed  some  part  of  the  RDX  from  the  consignment 
possessed  by  accused  Shamsher  Singh  on  a  Scooter  on 
or  about  11.8.1995  for  using  in  the  commission  of 
murder  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh.     Accordingly  Shamsher 


38 


Singh  was  arrested  in  this  case  on  11.12.1995  and 
was  taken  to  Delhi  for  investigation. 

47.  During  the  investigations  accused  Shamsher 
Singh  desired  to  make  a  confession  regarding  his 
guilt  and  he  was  accordingly  produced  in  the  court 
of  Shri  D . K . Sharma,  then  Metropolitan  Magistrate, 
New  Delhi  on  16.12.1995,  who  after  satisfying 
himself,  recorded  the  confessional  statement  of 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  in  which  he  has  accepted  his 
involvement  as  well  as  the  involvement  of  other 
accused  persons  and  also  confirmed  use  and 
providing  of  the  Truck  of  Sapinder  Singh  for 
transporting  RDX  etc  from  a  place  near  Ajnala  along 
with  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  also  confirmed 
that  RDX  was  stored  and  kept  in  his  house  in 
Village  Ukasi  Jattan,    P.S.   Rajpura  Sadar. 

48.  On  completion  of  necessary  investigations 
and  after  obtaining  the  necessary  sanction  for 
prosecution,  a  charge  sheet  N0.6-A  of  1995  was 
filed  in  the  court  of  C.J.M  Chandigarh,  and  vide 
order  dated  19.12.1995  the  same  was  committed  to 
the  court  of  Sessions. 

49.  During  the  pendency  of  the  proceedings 
before  the  Sessions  Court  Chandigarh  absconding 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  were 
also  arrested  by  the  Punjab  Police  on  22.12.1995. 
Later  accused  Balwant   Singh  was   taken   into  custody 


39 


by  Haryana  Police  in  its  case  vide  FIR  No.  88/95, 
P.S.Naggal,  Distt  Ambala  and  he  was  produced  before 
the  court  on  14.1.1996  and  at  that  time  he  was 
arrested  by  the  CBI  in  this  case  and  was  remanded 
to  Police  custody  till  27.1.1996.  Similarly, 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  was  arrested  by  the 
Haryana  Police  in  the  aforesaid  case  and  was 
produced  before  the  Magistrate  at  Ambala  on 
20.1.1996  from  where  he  was  arrested  by  the  CBI  in 
this  case  and  then  both  of  them  were  taken  to  Delhi 
for  investigations. 

50.  During  investigations,  accused  Balwant 
Singh  volunteered  to  make  confession  and  he  was 
accordingly  produced  before  ACMM  Patiala  House 
courts,  New  Delhi  on  22.1.1996  and  his  confession 
was  recorded  by  Shri  V . K . Maheshwari ,  then 
Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala  house  Court,  New 
Delhi  on  23.1.1996.  In  his  confessional  statement 
accused  Balwant  Singh  disclosed  all  the  details  as 
to  how  he  and  his  other  co-accused  person  hatched  a 
conspiracy  and  killed  Sardar  Beant  Singh  and  others 
on  31.8.1995,  through  a  bomb  blast  by  a  human  bomb 
Dilawar  Singh. 

51.  Similarly,  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
also  suffered  a  disclosure  statement  on  23.1.1996 
before  the  Investigating  Officer  and  disclosed  that 
he  had  prepared  the  sketch  map  of  the  Civil 
Secretariat    of    Punjab    &    Haryana    and    that    of  the 


40 


belt,  used  by  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  and  has  kept 
concealed  these  documents  in  the  house  of  Kuldip 
Singh  @  Ram  Singh,  Resident  of  H.No.A-341,  Nand 
Gram  Gaziabad,  where  he  stayed  before  the 
assassination  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh  and  accordingly 
after  breaking  open  the  lock  of  above  house  as  per 
the  identity  disclosed  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  the  sketch  map  of  Civil  Secretariat  and  of 
the  belt  were  recovered  from  the  aforesaid 
premises.  Similarly,  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
further  disclosed  that  while  staying  in  the  house 
of  Kuldip  Singh  @  Ram  Singh,  he  frequently  made 
telephonic  calls  to  Resham  Singh  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  at  Germany  regarding  the 
assassination  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh  and  he 
accordingly  identified  and  pointed  out  the  STD/ISD 
PCO  Booths  at  Gaziabad  belonging  to  Rajesh  Kumar 
Malhotra  &  Garg  Communications. 

52 .  Accordingly  after  investigating  the  matter 

the  C.B.I  found  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Balwant  Singh  in  pursuance  of  their  criminal 
conspiracy  committed  the  following  acts  of 
omissions  and  commissions  in  addition  to  the 
circumstances  mentioned     above  in  para  number  21:- 

(i)  In  June,  1995  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  came  to  India  from  Pakistan 
and  stayed  with  Kuldeep  Singh  @  Ram 
Singh       in       H.No.341-A,  Nandgram, 


41 


colony,  Ghaziabad  (UP)  .  While 
staying  there  he  visited  Patiala 
several  times  and  met  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  at 
accused  Balwant  Singh's  house. 

(ii)  On  23.6.1995  Manjinder  Singh  @ 
Babaji  booked  Room  No. 203  in  Surya 
Guest  House,  Darya  Ganj  ,  Delhi, 
where  he,  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  assembled  and 
discussed  the  security  arrangement 
of  S.Beant  Singh  and  also  the 
modalities  to  assassinate  S.beant 
Singh . 

(iii)  In  the  first  week  of  July,  1995 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  held  a 
meeting  with  accused  Balwant  Singh 
at  latter's  residence  i.e  H.N0.68/A 
Rattan  Nagar,  Patiala  and  discussed 
the  security  arrangements  for 
S.Beant  Singh.  They  finalised  the 
plan  to  kill  s.Beant  Singh  through  a 
'human  bomb'  in  the  Punjab  &  Haryana 
Civil  Secretariat  for  which  they 
decided  to  get  stitched  a  cloth  belt 
to  be  stuffed  with  explosives  etc 
which  was  to  be  strapped  by  the 
assassin.      They      also      decided  to 


42 


procure  an  Ambassador  Car  to 
facilitate  the  entry  of  the  assassin 
into  the  Sectt.  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
took  up  the  responsibility  of 
arranging  the  explosives  etc.  and 
car.  Few  more  uniforms  were  also  got 
stitched  as  suggested  by  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara. 

(iv)  As  mentioned  above, Jaaagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  after  precuring  RDX  etc  with 
the  help  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh, 
and  storing  them  in  Nasib  Singh's 
house  at  Jhingra  kalan  and 
purchasing  the  car,  DBA-9598  and 
leaving  it  with  Paramjit  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  Delhi,  went  to 
Patiala  again  on  21st  August,  1995 
and  met  Balwant  Singh.  On  22.8.1995 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant 
Singh  brought  some  explosive 
material  to  Balwant  Singh's  house  in 
Patiala . 

(v)  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant 
Singh  got  stitched  two  cloth  belts 
for  the  purpose  of  making  a  belt 
bomb,  from  Stitch  Co-Jeans,  A/C 
Market,  Patiala.  Delivery  of  one 
belt   was    taken    on   25.8.1995  evening 


43 


and  that  of  the  second  one  on 
27.8.1995  evening.  One  of  these 
belts  was  used  by  assassin  Dilawar 
Singh  on  31.8.1995  for  assassinating 
S.Beant  Singh.  The  second  one  was 
recovered  during  investigation  from 
the  dicky  of  Balwant  Singh's  Scooter 
No .  PB-11-1955  which  he  had  left  in 
the  Scooter  parking  of  Patiala  Bus 
Stand  on  the  evening  of  31.8.1995 
after  assassination  of  S.Beant 
Singh.  Accused  Balwant  Singh  while 
being  in  police  custody  made  a 
disclosure  statement  regarding  the 
belt  being  stitched  from  Patiala  and 
consequent  to  the  said  disclosure 
statement,  he  pointed  out  the  shop 
of  M/s  Stitch  Co-Jeans,  Air 
Conditioned  Market,  Patiala,  from 
where  the  said  belts  were  got 
stitched.  The  accused  Balwant  Singh 
also  made  a  disclosure  statement 
that  in  the  month  of  July,  1995  he 
got  various  police  uniforms  stitched 
for  himself  and  Dilawar  Singh  and  he 
also  pointed  out  the  shop,  Sidhu 
Tailors,  Tripuri  Town,  Patiala,  from 
where  the  said  uniforms  were  got 
stitched . 


44 


(vi)  On  28.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Balwant  Singh  hired  a  Maruti  Van 
Taxi  No.  DAJ  1401  from  Patiala  and 
took  along  Service  Stengun  of 
Balwant  Singh,  two  magazines  of  the 
same  gun,  the  belt  with  explosive 
material  and  police  uniforms  etc  in 
the  Van  and  went  to  Mohali  where 
they  met  Dilawar  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  @  Tara  as  preplanned. 

(vii)  On  28.8.1995  Balwant  Singh, 
Dilawar  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Gurmeet  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh 
remade  the  belt  bomb  by  adding  some 
more  explosive  material  and  RDX  and 
nuts/bolts  into  the  cloth  belt  in 
the  house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
at  house  NO. 981,  Phase. IV,  SAS 
Nagar,  Mohali  during  night  hours.  It 
was  agreed  that  accused  Dilawar 
Singh  will  wear  the  belt  containing 
the  explosives  etc  and  will  act  as 
human  bomb  to  kill  Beant  Singh.  And 
on  30-08-95,  all  of  them  made  a 
unsuccessful  attempt  to  kill  Beant 
Singh  and  ultimately  on  31-08-95 
they  hit  their  target  as  per  the 
details  given  in  para  21. 


45 


(viii) Immediately  after  the  aforesaid 
incident,  accused  Balwant  Singh 
escaped  to  Patiala  on  Scooter  No. 
PB-11-1995  and  left  the  same  at 
Pritam  Cycle  Stand,  Patiala  and  met 
his  foster  parents  in  village  Mehraj 
Patti  before  whom  he  made  a 
confession.  After  visiting  village 
Mehraj  Patti  &  Ludhiana,  Balwant 
Singh  absconded  and  reached  Nagpur 
on  2.9.1995  and  met  his  friend 
Tejinder  Singh.  There  in  presence  of 
Tejinder  Singh,  Gurpreet  Singh, 
Gurinder  Singh  and  Amandeep  Singh, 
he  confessed  that  he  killed  S.Beant 
Singh  on  31.8.1995  along  with  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh  and 
Dilawar  Singh  and  others.  Accused 
Balwant  Singh  stayed  in  Nagpur  from 
3.9.1995  to  6.9.1995  at  Hotels  Anand 
Mahal  and  President  in  assumed/ 
fictitious  name  of  Sandeep  Sharma. 
Later  he  stayed  at  Nanded  and 
Panipat . 


(ix) Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
absconded  and  in  order  to  evade  his 
arrest  stayed  at  H. No. A/341, 
Nandgram,   Ghaziabad   (UP) . 


46 


(x)  Accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  absconded  after  the 
commission  of  offence  and  had  been 
evading  arrest.  Around  15.9.1995, 
Balwant  Singh  joined  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  in  Jaipur.  He  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  along  with  some  other 
persons  stayed  at  different  places 
in  Jaipur,  Calcutta,  Farrukhabad, 
Agra,  Ambala  and  Ludhiana  till 
22.12.1995  under  fictitious  names 
concealing  their  identities. 

(xi)  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and 
Balwant  Singh  maintained  regular 
telephonic  contact  with  members  of 
their  outfit  i.e  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  for  seeking 
instructions  and  material  &  monetary 
support  from  other  countries  viz, 
Germany,   USA,   Norway  etc. 


(xii)The  chance  prints  lifted  from  Car 
No.  DBA-9598  used  in  the  commission 
of  the  crime,  were  got  compared  with 
the  specimen  finger  prints  of  the 
accused  persons  and  one  of  the 
chance  prints  has  been  found  to  be 
that  of  accused  Balwant  Singh. 


47 


53.  Accordingly  after  completion  of 

investigations  and  after  obtaining  the  necessary 
sanctions,  a  supplementary  charge  sheet  no.6-B  was 
submitted  against  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara,  in  the  court  of  Area  Magistrate  and 
vide  order,  dated  19.2.1996,  Shri  Shekhar  Dhawan, 
then  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Chandigarh 
committed  the  case  qua  these  accused  persons  to  the 
court  of  Sessions. 


CHARGE  SHEET 


54.  After  commitment   of  all   the  three  charge 

sheets,  then  learned  Sessions  Judge  heard  arguments 
on  the  question  of  charge  and  vide  detailed  order 
dated,  30.4.1996,  found  that  there  are  sufficient 
grounds  for  presuming  that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Navjot  Singh, 
Nasib  Singh,  Shamsher  Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  alongwith  accused  Mehal 
Singhand  Wadhawa  Singh  (based  in  Pakistan) ,  accused 
Manjnder  Singh  (based  in  U.K),  Harjit  Singh  (based 
in  U.S. A),  accused  Rasham  Singh  (based  in  Germany), 
accused  Paramjit  Singh  and  accused  Jagroop  Singh 
(since  absconding)  and  Dilawar  Singh  (since  dead) 
have  committed  offences  punishable  under  Section 
120-B  read  with  Section  302  of  the  Indian  Penal 
Code   and   4/5   of   the   Explosives   Substances  Act  and 


48 


that  they  have  also  committed  offences  punishable 
under  Section  4  and  6  of  the  Explosive  Substances 
Act;  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  accused 
have  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section 
114  read  with  Section  302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code 
and  all  the  above  named  accused  have  also  committed 
an  offence  punishable  under  Section  114  read  with 
Section  307  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code;  and  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Navjot  Singh, 
Nasib  Singh,  Shamsher  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
have  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section 
109  read  with  Section  302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code 
and  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  109  read 
with  Section  307  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code;  and 
accused  Nasib  Singh  and  accused  Gurmit  Singh  have 
also  committed  an  offence  punishable  under  Section 
5  of  the  Explosive  Substances  Act. 

55.  As    per    the    above    order,     all    the  eight 

accused  persons,  who  were  put  on  trial  namely 
Gurmeet  Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  alias 
Tara,  Navjot  Singh,  Nasib  Singh,  Shamsher  Singh, 
Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  were 
accordingly  charge  sheeted.  The  contents  of  the 
charge  sheet  were  explained  to  each  of  the  accused 
persons  in  their  own  vernacular  language  to  which 
they  pleaded  not  guilty  and  claimed  trial. 


49 


PROSECUTION  EVIDENCE 


56.  In      order      to      prove       its       case,  the 

prosecution  examined  as  many  as  247  witnesses.  A 
brief  resume  of  their  testimony  along  with  their 
particulars  and  the  role  of  these  witnesses  is  as 
follows : 

PW-1,     Dr.Jagjiv    Sharma,     who  had 

conducted  the  postmortem  examination  of 
the  dead  body  of  deceased  Chamkaur 
Singh,  Jagdish  Singh,  Tota  Ram  and 
Dhanwant  Singh,  accordingly  proved  his 
postmortem  reports  showing  that  death  of 
these  persons  took  place  because  of  the 
injuries  suffered  in     this  blast. 

PW-2  ,     Dr.  J.R.Chauhan,     who  had 

conducted  the  postmortem  examination  on 
the  dead  body  of  Kultar  Singh  and  Swaran 
Singh,  accordingly  proved  his  postmortem 
reports  showing  that  death  of  these 
persons  took  place  because  of  the 
injuries  suffered  in  this  blast. 

PW-3,      Dr.P.L     Goyal,      who  had 

conducted  the  postmortem  examination  on 
the  dead  body  of  Sher  Singh  accordingly 
proved  his  postmortem  report  showing  that 
death  of  the  person  took  place  because 
of  the  injuries  suffered  in  this  blast. 


50 


PW-4,      Dr . J.K.Katra,       who  had 

conducted  the  postmortem  examination  on 
the  dead  body  of  HC  Ajaib  Singh  and 
Rajinder  Prashad,  accordingly  proved  his 
postmortem  report  showing  that  death  of 
the  person  took  place  because  of  the 
injuries  suffered  in  this  blast. 

PW-5,    Dr. Deepak  Bakshi,    who  had 

conducted  the  postmortem  examination  on 
the  dead  body  of  Balbir  Singh, 
accordingly,  proved  his  postmortem 
reports  showing  that  death  of  the  person 
took  place  because  of  the  injuries 
suffered  in  this  blast. 

PW-6,     Dr.Inderjit     Diwan  had 

conducted  the  postmortem  examination  on 
the  dead  body  of  deceased  Beant  Singh, 
Dr.  Anil  Duggal  as  well  as  the  postmortem 
examination  of  the  two  legs  and  a  head, 
which  was  later  on  identified  to  be  of 
assassin  Dilawar  Singh.  Accordingly,  this 
witness  proved  that  on  the  reguest  of  the 
police  he  conducted  the  postmortem 
examination  on  the  dead  body  of  deceased 
Beant  Singh,  for  which  the  dead  body  was 
identified  by  Shamsher  Singh  Dhillon, 
then  Excise  Minister  Punjab  and  Shri 
Karam   Singh   Gill,    then    Industry  Minister 


51 


Punjab,  who  was  also  brother  in  law  of 
deceased  Sardar  Beant  Singh,  and 
accordingly  he  proved  that  after 
conducting  the  postmortem  examination  as 
per  his  report,  Ex.PW6/5,  he  concluded 
that  the  deceased  Sardar  Beant  Singh  had 
died  because  of  the  injuries  suffered  in 
the  bomb  blast  caused  by  an  explosive 
device  and  it  was  an  instant  death. 

He  further  proved  that  the 
proline  suture  of  the  deceased  was 
identified  by  Professor  M.M.Gupta  of 
P.G.I,  who  had  operated  the  deceased  for 
paranumblical  hernia  a  few  months  prior 
to  this  incident  and  he  had  also  sought 
the  help  of  PW-17,  Dr.Amar  Singh,  BDS  of 
Payal,  who  had  recognized  the  denture  of 
the  deceased  C.M  as  he  had  prepared  the 
same  about  three  months  prior  to  this 
incident . 

This  witness  has  also  proved 
that  he  being  a  member  of  board  of  three 
Doctors  also  conducted  the  postmortem 
examination  on  the  dead  body  of  deceased 
Anil  Kumar  Duggal,  who  also  died  in  this 
bomb  blast  when  standing  near  to  the 
Chief  Minister. 


52 


He  further  deposed  that  on 
4.9.1995,  two  legs  and  a  head  were  also 
produced  before  him  for  postmortem 
examination  of  the  same  and  he  examined 
those  limbs  from  5.9.1995  to  8.9.1995  and 
as  per  his  report,  Ex.PW6/43,  he  opined 
that  both  the  legs  appeared  to  be  that  of 
the  same  person  and  have  been  severed  by 
a  mutilated  injury  just  above  the  knee 
joints  and  both  the  legs  belongs  to  the 
same  individual  having  a  height  of  5"  10 
inch  and  to  decide  whether  the  legs  and 
the  head  belongs  to  the  same  person  he 
recommended  a  DNA  test. 

He  further  deposed  that  on 
5.9.1995,  Dr.Lalji  Singh  of  Hyderabad 
came  to  his  department  and  on  the 
suggestions  of  Dr. Lai  Singh,  he  obtained 
small  pieces  of  scalp,  small  bunch  of 
hair,  a  piece  of  muscle,  a  piece  of  bone 
from  the  head  of  the  said  unknown  person 
and  also  muscle  pieces  from  right  leg  and 
left  leg  and  put  them  in  small  plastic 
bottle  and  handed  them  over  to  Dr.  Lai  jit 
Singh . 

Similarly  the  blood  samples  of 
Harnek  Singh,  Chamkaur  Singh  and  the 
mother     of     deceased     Dilawar     Singh  were 


53 


also  taken  in  his  presence  and  same  were 
also  handed  over  to  Dr.Lalji  for  D.N. A 
profile . 

He  also  proved  that  after  the 
postmortem  examination  of  dead  body  of 
Baldev  Singh  then  MLA  from  Pacca  Kalan, 
he  found  that  he  had  also  died  because  of 
the  injuries  suffered  in  the  bomb  blast. 

PW-7,  Kanwar  Kishan,  Senior 
Assistant  has      brought      the  record 

regarding  medico  legal  reports  of  the 
injured  which  were  brought  to  the 
Hospital  and  proved  the  same  accordingly. 

PW-8,  Dr.Utpal  Kumar  has  proved 
the  injuries  suffered  by  the  injured 
Dhanwant  Singh,  who  died  later  on  because 
of  the  injuries  suffered  in  the  blast. 

PW-9,  Dr  .M.  Siriniwas  has  also 
proved  the  treatment  record  of  the 
injured  Baldev  Singh  and  further  deposed 
that  deceased  Baldev  Singh  died  later  on 
because  of  the  injuries  suffered  in  the 
blast . 

PW-10,  Dr .R.K. Sharma,  Surgeon  in 
the    Deptt    of    Plastic    Surgery,    P.G.I  had 


54 


accordingly  proved  the  treatment  given  to 
the  deceased  Dhanwant  Singh  in  his 
department . 

PW-11,     Dr.Om    Parkash,     who  had 

examined  one  of  the  injured  Jagdish  Singh 
and  Tota  Ram,  accordingly  proved  the 
medico  legal  reports  of  both  and  deposed 
that  later  on  both  of  them  died  because 
of  the  injuries  suffered  in  the  blast.  In 
addition  to  this  he  had  also  proved  the 
record  of  the  injuries  and  treatment  of 
the  injured  Pala  Ram  and  D . K . Tripathi . 

PW-12,     Dr.Manmohan     Singh  Gill 

had  brought  the  original  files  of  all  the 
10  injured  persons  admitted  in  General 
Hospital  Sector  16  Chandigarh  and  proved 
the  copies  of  record. 

PW-13,  Man jit  Singh,  Pharmacist 
had  brought  the  OPD  register  of  G.H 
Sector  16  Chandigarh,  from  period 
16.8.1995  to  10.10.1995  and  proved  the 
same . 

PW-14,  Dr.Pankaj  Arora, 

Emergency  Medical  Officer,  Govt  Medical 
College,  Chandigarh,  proved  that  on 
31.8.1995       various       persons      with  the 


55 


alleged  history  of  having  received 
injuries  in  the  bomb  blast  were  brought 
to  the  OPD  and  he  accordingly  examined 
Amar  Singh,  Bakshish  Singh,  Manojit  Pal, 
Varinder  Rana,  Joginder  Singh,  Kesar 
Singh, Manmohan  Singh,  Upkar  Singh  and 
found  various  injuries  on  these  persons 
as  mentioned  in  the  medico  legal  reports 
and  all  of  them  remained  under  treatment 
in  the  Hospital . 

PW-15,  Dr.Sushil  Gupta,  Medical 
Officer,  General  Hospital,  Sector  16, 
Chandigarh,  proved  that  on  31.8.1995  he 
examined  injured  Kulwant  Singh,  Satinder 
Kumar  and  both  of  them  have  suffered 
injuries  because  of  the  bomb  blast. 

PW-16,   Dr.   Sandeep  Singh  Sahini, 

who  had  conducted  the  postmortem 
examination  on  the  dead  body  of  Yash 
Pal,  Laxman  Dass,  Mukhtair  Singh  and 
Ranjodh   Singh  accordingly  proved  that 

these  persons  died  because  of  the 
injuries  suffered  in  the  bomb  blast. 

PW-17,  Dr. Amar  Singh,  CMO, 
Dental  Surgeon,  was  the  family  Doctor  of 
deceased  Beant  Singh  and  he  used  to  take 
care    of    the    dental    problem    of  deceased 


56 


Chief  Minister  and  he  accordingly  deposed 
that  on  01.09.1995  he  came  to  Chandigarh 
and  then  went  to  P.G.I  and  on  the  asking 
of  Dr.Bakshi  he  identified  the  denture  of 
deceased  Chief  Minister  and  he  found  the 
same  to  be  the  same  denture  which  he 
prepared  for  the  deceased  Sardar  Beant 
Singh  and  he  submitted  his  report 
Ex.PW6/4/A  in  this  regard. 

PW-18,      Dr.Ishwar      Lohana  has 

treated  one  of  the  injured  Pala  Ram  and 
he  accordingly  proved  the  treatment  given 
by  him. 

PW-19,    Dr.Rajinder    Kumar    was  a 

Doctor  on  duty  when  the  injured  and  dead 
persons  were  brought  to  the  Hospital  for 
treatment  and  postmortem  examination  and 
he  accordingly  proved  those  proceedings . 

PW-20,      Dr . J . L . Chaudhary      is  a 

formal  witness  who  after  receiving  the 
information  regarding  blast  deputed 
various  Doctors  for  treatment  & 
postmortem  examination. 

PW-21,  Dr.A.S.Rathee,  being 
Senior  Resident  of  the  Deptt  of  Plastic 
Surgery,  P.G.I     treated     one     of  the 


57 


injured  of  bomb  blast,  D . K . Tripathy  and 
accordingly  proved  the  record  in  this 
regard . 

PW-22,  SI  Hari  Ram  of  Chandigarh 
Police  Control  Room,  who  has  proved  the 
various  Traffic  Net,  Zebra  Net,  V.I.P 
Security  Net,  P. S. Central  Net,  P.S.  East 
Net  and  P.S. South  Net  and  has  proved 
Ex.PW22/l  to  Ex.PW22/5  with  regard  to  the 
entries  in  the  log  book  and  of  different 
nets.  He  has  also  proved  the 
certification  to  the  effect  that  it 
contains  380  pages  from  17.8.1995  to 
3.9.1995.  The  above  documents  were  taken 
into  custody  vide  memo  Ex.PW22/6  and  he 
also  proved  the  signatures  on  the  said 
document . 

PW-23,     C.Kartar    Singh,     No. 2  715 

has  deposed  that  he  was  posted  as 
Constable  in  Police  Control  Room  and  was 
on  duty  on  31.8.1995  on  G.O.  Net  from 
12.45  pm  till  7.45  p.m.  Similarly  on 
1.9.1995  he  was  on  duty  from  7:52  hours 
to  12:45  hours  and  19:45  pm  to  7.45  a.m 
on  2.9.1995.  He  has  further  proved  the 
entry,  Ex.PW23/l  from  page  no. 306  to  316 
in  the  log  book. 


58 


PW-24,     Constable     Balraj  Singh 

No. 299,  has  proved  that  he  was  on  duty  on 
31.8.1995  on  P.S.  East  Net,  Police 
Control  Room,  U.T.  Chandigarh.  He  has 
also  described  with  regard  to  the  call 
signs  used  on  wireless  sets.  He  has  also 
proved  his  entry  at  page  no. 287  regarding 
receiving  message,  Ex.PW24/l.  He  has  also 
proved  that  on  3.8.1995  at  17:11  hours  a 
message  was  flashed  and  the  entry  in  this 
regard  was  made. 

PW-25,  Mohan  Rajesh  Shekhar  has 

deposed  that  he  was  owner  of  the  Car 
bearing  registration  No.  DBD-949,  in  the 
year  1995  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was 
employed  with  him  as  a  driver.  He  has 
also  rightly  identified  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  during  the  course  of 
examination.  He  further  stated  that 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  remained 
absent  from  duty  w.e.f  24.8.95  to 
31.8.1995  and  he  resumed  his  duty  on 
1.9.1995  and  worked  for  1.9.1995  and 
2.9.1995.  But  thereafter,  he  never 
returned  back.  He  also  deposed  that  he 
used  to  receive  some  telephone  calls  from 
Paramjit  Singh  and  Raj  for  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara . 


59 


PW-26,    Smt.Revathi    Raj  Shekhar, 

who  is  the  wife  of  PW-25,  had 
corroborated  the  statement  of  PW-25  with 
regard  to  the  ownership  of  car  No.  DBD- 
94  9  and  employment  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
in  the  firm  of  her  husband.  She  has  also 
deposed  that  on  23.08.1995,  she  received 
a  message  for  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
passed  on  the  same  to  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
who  left  Delhi  on  24.8.1995  saying  that 
he  has  some  personal  work.  She  has  also 
rightly  identified  the  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara,  to  be  the  same  person  who  was 
employed  with  her  husband. 

PW-27 ,  C . Subhash         Chander , 

No. 781,  was  working  in  Wireless  Control 
Room  and  was  on  duty  on  31.8.1995  on  P.S. 
Central  Net.  He  has  also  proved  the 
entry,  Ex.PW22/4  made  in  the  log  book  of 
Central  Net  covering  the  period  31.8.1995 
and  an  entry,  Ex.PW27/l  regarding  sending 
force  and  checking  of  vehicles  of  the 
suspicious  persons  in  the  area  and 
receipt  of  message  was  also  confirmed. 

PW-28,    C.Rajinder  Kumar     was  on 

V.I.P  Net  of  Police  Control  Room.  He  has 
also  proved  different  messages  flashed 
between  17:11  hours  and  17:30  hours. 


60 


PW-29,  Gautam  Singh  was  working 
as  Wireless  Operator  in  Police  Control 
room  and  he  has  proved  that  he  was  on 
duty  on  31.8.1995  and  was  posted  in  the 
Police  Control  Room  on  Zebra  Net  at  that 
point  of  time.  He  has  also  proved  his 
entry,  Ex.PW28/l,  regarding  messages 
received  about  blast  in  Civil 
Secretariat . 

PW-30,  HC  Mohinder  Singh     was  on 

duty  on  31.8.1995  and  made  entries  in  the 
roznamacha  register  w.e.f  27.8.1995  to 
10.9.1995.  He  has  according,  proved  the 
entry  vide  DDR  No.  32,  in  relation  to  the 
flashing  of  the  message,  Ex.PW30/l  and 
Ex.PW30/2  entry  in  the  roznamacha  of  DDR 
at  serial  no.  33,  which  was  made  in  his 
own  hand  writing.  This  witness  has  also 
proved  that  the  ruka,  Ex.PW30/3,  was 
received  by  him,  on  the  basis  of  which 
FIR  No. 96  of  1995,  Ex.PW30/4,  was 
registered,  which  was  in  his  hand 
writing.  An  entry  in  DDR  at  serial  no.  36 
regarding  the  receipt  of  Ex.PW30/3  ruka 
was  made.  This  witness  has  also  proved  an 
entry  to  the  effect  that  copy  of  FIR, 
Ex.PW30/6  was  delivered  to  Shri  A.K.Jain 
then  Area  Magistrate. 


61 


PW-31,    Sq.Commdr.    P.K.Joshi,    was  the 

incharge  of  Task  Force  Command  Chandigarh 
of  the  National  Security  Guards  which 
provides  mobile  security  to  Beant  Singh, 
then  then  Chief  Minister  Punjab  and  Shri 
Bhajan  Lai,  then  chief  Minister  Haryana 
and  he  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995  he  was 
incharge  of  Task  Force  in  National 
Security  Guard  and  he  further  proved  that 
on  behalf  of  Task  Force  and  on  receiving 
information  regarding  bomb  blast  in  Civil 
Secretariat  he  reached  at  the  spot  and 
found  that  Beant  Singh  then  Chief 
Minister  was  lying  dead  there  along  with 
some  other  casualties  and  there  was 
extensive  damage  to  the  building  of 
Secretariat  and  he  accordingly  directed 
his  force  to  cordon  the  area  and  removed 
the  dead  bodies  to  the  Hospital  and 
remain  present  at  the  spot.  During  the 
investigations  and  all  the  arms  and 
ammunitions  of  the  security  agency  lying 
at  the  spot  and  also  reported  the  list  of 
missing  arms  and  ammunitions.  He  also 
deposed  that  he  received  the  dead  bodies 
of  his  force  and  sent  the  same  to  the 
towns  of  the  deceased  persons  vide 
receipt,  Ex.PW31/l.  He  has  also  proved 
the     postmortem     report,      Ex.PW2/ll,  of 


62 


Kultar  Singh  which  bears  his  signatures 
at  point  A  and  at  point  B  and  also  bears 
the  signature  of  R.K.Bhatachar j i,  Team 
Commander.  He  further  proved  the 
postmortem  report,  Ex.PW4/22  of  Rajinder 
Parsad  which  bears  his  as  well  as  the 
signatures  of  Bhatacharji  at  point  A  and 
B  and  he  also  proved  the  postmortem 
report,  Ex.PW5/ll  of  Dalbir  Singh  and 
same  bears  his  as  well  as  signatures  of 
R . K . Bhatachar j i  at  points  A  &  B. 

PW-32,    Subhash    Kumar    Dutta  has 

deposed  that  he  was  employed  in  Bhartiya 
Kala  Render  and  retired  in  1987.  He 
further  deposed  that  he  had  purchased  an 
old  Ambassador  Car  bearing  registration 
No.  DBA  9598,  from  one  Paul  Singh  and  he 
proved  the  registration  certificate  of 
the  car  mark  WW.  He  further  proved  that 
he  insured  the  car  and  Ex.PW32/l,is  the 
certificate  of  Insurance  which  was  issued 
by  the  Insurance  Company.  He  further 
deposed  that  he  sold  the  car,  Ex.76  to 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  delivery  receipt  of 
Car,  Ex.PW32/2,  bears  the  signatures  of 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  as  Basant  Singh  at 
point  B.  The  witness  has  identified  the 
accused    Jagtar    Singh    Tara,    who    has  put 


63 


his  signature  on  Ex.PW32/2,  as  Basant 
Singh.  This  witness  has  also  identified 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  who  has 
accompanied  Jagtar  Singh  Tara. 

PW-33,     Tarlochan    Singh,     is  an 

electrician  and  also  deals  in  the 
business  of  sale  &  purchase  of  Scooters, 
which  he  operates  from  his  residence. 
This      witness      deposed  that  accused 

Paramjit  Singh  had  given  him  Scooter 
bearing  registration  No.  DL-5S-F-0318  for 
sale  and  its  papers  were  taken  into 
possession  by  CBI  vide  memo  Ex.PW33/l, 
which  bears  his  signatures  as  well  as 
of  Harjit  Singh,  his  cousin  at  point  B. 
This  witness  has  also  handed  over  the 
insurance  cover  note  Mark  XX  and  Harjit 
Singh  had  put  his  signatures  at  point  A 
and  he  also  handed  over  the  sale  letters, 
which  bears  the  signature  of  one  Jagtar 
Singh,  which  are  mark  XX/1  to  XX/4, 
delivery  receipt,  mark  XX/5,  which  also 
bears  the  signatures  of  Harjit  Singh  at 
point  A.  This  witness  has  also  proved  the 
Scooter,  Ex.P70,  which  was  handed  over  to 
him  by  accused  Paramjit  Singh,  out  side 
the  court  premises. 

PW-34,        Kamalpreet  Walia,  who 


64 


was  working  as  an  agent  for  sale 
purchase  of  Scooters  and  vehicles, 
deposed  that  Scooter  make  Bajaj  Chetak 
of    1990      Model,  bearing  registration 

No.  PB-11-1955,  was  purchased  by  him 
from  Amar  Singh  in  the  month  of  July, 
1995  and  after  repairing  the  same,  he 
sold  the  same  to  deceased  Dilawar  Singh, 
who  was  known  to  him  through  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  on  16  or  17.8.1995  and 
he  also  handed         over  the 

registration  certificate  and  asked  for 
the  name  of  the  person  in  whose 
name  the  permission  is  to  be  issued  but 
it  was  never  taken.  He  further  deposed 
that  he  also  handed  over  the  original 
affidavit  of  Amar  Singh,  Ex.PW34/l,to 
the  C.B.I  along  with  form  No.  29  and  form 
No. 30  Ex.PW34/2  to  Ex.PW34/4.  He  also 
identified  the  photo  graph,  mark  YY,  of 
Dilawar  Singh  and  put  his  signatures  at 
point-A  and  also  identified  the  Scooter 
as  Ex.P70  in  the  court. 

PW-35,  P.Ganpati,  a  Journalist 
by  profession  was  working  in  the  office 
of  UNI  for  collecting  news  and  deposed 
that  on  31.8.1995,  he  received  a  fax 
message  from  Babbar  Khalsa  International 
claiming    responsibility    for  assassination 


65 


of  deceased  Beant  Singh.  He  further 
deposed  that  on  6.9.1995  he  received 
another  fax  message  in  this  regard  and 
proved  the  copies  of  both  those  messages 
as  mark  AAA  and  mark  BBB  along  with  its 
photo  copies  mark  AAA/1  and  mark  BBB/1 
respectively . 

PW-36,  Anand  Parkash,  Upper 
Division  clerk,  in  the  Transport 
Authority  Loni  Delhi,  proved  the 
ownership  of  the  Scooter  No.  DL-5SF-0318 
to  be  in  the  name  of  Jagtar  Singh  s/o 
Sandhu  Singh,  r/o  Delhi  and  deposed  that 
file,  Ex.PW36/l  of  the  same  was  taken 
into  possession  by  the  CBI  as  per  memo 
Ex. PW36/2 . 

PW-37,  Jagtar  Singh  has  also 
proved  the  ownership  of  the  Scooter  as 
stated  by  PW-36. 

PW-38,     K . N . Prabhakar ,     who  was 

working  as  Personal  Assistant  to  the 
Editor  Hind  Samachar  Group  of  News  Paper, 
Jalandhar  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995,  he 
received  fax  messages  mark  DDD  and  mark 
EEE  from  Babbar  Khalsa  International  in 
relation  to  the  assassination  of  Sardar 
Beant     Singh     and     similarly    on  7.9.1995 


66 


they  again  received  fax  message  mark  FFF 
for  the  same  reason,  which  he  later  on 
handed  over  to  C.B.I. 

PW-39,   Chander  Mohan  Bakshi,  who 

was  working  as  SP  in  the  CM  Security 
Punjab,  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995,  he 
left  the  civil  secretariat  after 
instructing  the  staff  about  the  further 
programme  of  Chief  Minister  but  on  the 
way  he  heard  a  loud  explosion  and 
immediately  rushed  back  to  the  spot  and 
found  that  a  bomb  blast  had  taken  place 
in  Civil  Secretariat  near  the  car  of 
Chief  Minister  as  a  result  of  which  Chief 
Minister  Beant  Singh  along  with  other 
persons  were  lying  dead  and  he 
accordingly  started  evacuation  of  the 
injured  and  remained  present  during  those 
proceedings . 

PW-40,   Salamat  Masih,   who  was  on 

duty  at  the  residence  of  then  CM  Punjab 
and  his  duty  was  to  carry  out  the  anti 
sabotage  check  in  the  CM's  residence 
lawns  and  vehicles  and  deposed  that  on 
31.8.1995  he  carried  out  the  anti 
sabotage  check  of  the  residence  and  its 
surroundings  as  well  as  the  vehicles 
forming   part    of    CM's    convoy    and  cleared 


67 


the  same.  He  further  deposed  that  after 
the  blast  he  reached  at  the  spot.  But  he 
was  not  allowed  to  go  near  to  the 
vehicles . 

PW-41,  Hem  Chand,  who  was  posted 
as  DSP  of  the  security  wing  of  CM  Punjab 
deposed  that  on  31.8.1995  he  was  on  duty 
at  CM's  office  and  at  about  5.05  p.m  the 
CM  left  his  office.  But  after  7-8  minutes 
he  heard  an  explosion  and  immediately 
came  down  and  found  the  bomb  blast  and 
took  the  remedial  steps . 

PW-42,  Amar  Singh,  s/o  Mukand 
Singh  was  the  earlier  owner  of  the 
Scooter  bearing  registration  PB-11-1955 
and  deposed  that  after  purchasing  the 
scooter  from  Major  Singh,  he  sold  the 
same  in  July,  1995  to  one  Kamalpreet 
Walia  and  handed  over  the  registration 
book  and  one  affidavit  and  two  form  for 
transfer  of  the  same  which  are  Ex.PW34/l 
to  Ex.PW34/4  and  also  identified  the 
scooter  as  Ex.P77. 

PW-43,  Kaish  Kumar,  Clerk  of  the 
Office  of  DTO,  Ludhiana  proved  the  name 
of  the  registered  owner  of  the  Scooter 
bearing      registration     no.PCP      2085  and 


68 


deposed  that  earlier  it  was  in  the  name 
of  Vijay  Chopra  but  in  the  year  1993  it 
was  transferred  in  the  name  of  Harjit 
Singh  s/o  Bhagwan  Singh,  r/o  Patiala  and 
he  handed  over  the  record  to  the  CBI. 

PW-44,  Sampuran  Singh,  Clerk, 
DTO  Office,  Patiala  proved  the  ownership 
of  Scooter  bearing  registration  No.  PB- 
11-1955  and  deposed  that  it  was 
registered  in  the  name  of  Darshan  Singh 
s/o  Gurbax  Singh  but  later  on  it  was 
transferred  in  the  name  of  Major  Singh 
s/o  Gurbax  Singh  and  then  it  was 
transferred  in  the  name  of  Amar  Singh  s/o 
Mukand  Singh  in  the  year  1995  and  he 
handed  over  this  record  to  the  CBI. 

PW-45,    Vijay    Kumar    Chopra,  who 

was  the  original  owner  of  the  Scooter 
bearing  registration  no.PCP-2085  deposed 
that  he  had  sold  the  above  Scooter  to 
Harjit  Singh  s/o  Bhagwan  Singh  in  the 
year  1992  as  per  the  document,  Ex.PW43/2 
to  Ex.PW43/5,  which  were  handed  over  to 
Harjit  Singh  along  with  the  Scooter.  He 
also  identified  the  said  Scooter  in  the 
Court . 

PW-4  6,  Man jit  Singh  deposed  that 


69 


scooter  bearing  registration  No.  PCP-2085 
was  sold  to  Vipan  by  Harjit  Singh  in  his 
presence . 

PW-47,  Harjit  Singh  also  deposed 
that  he  purchased  the  Bajaj  Chetak 
Scooter  bearing  registration  No.  PCP-2085 
in  the  year  1992  and  then  sold  it  to 
Deepinder  @  Vipan  s/o  Chaman  Lai  with  the 
help  of  PW-46,  Manjit  Singh  and  handed 
over  the  scooter  and  documents  to  him 
along  with  the  affidavits  and  he  also 
identified  the  scooter  in  the  court. 

PW-48,  Ranjit  Singh,  owner  of 
Ran jit  Work  Shop  Sector  7  Chandigarh 
deposed  that  on  the  reguest  of  Surender 
Sharma  in  the  last  week  of  August,  1995 
he  allowed  Surinder  Sharma  to  use  the 
back  yard  of  his  service  station  to  paint 
a  car . 

PW-4  9,       AS  I      Arun      Kumar  was 

working  as  a  Traffic  Police  Official  and 
deposed,  that  on  24.8.1995  he  challaned 
accused  Balwant  Singh  along  with  his 
companion,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  while 
travelling  on  Scooter  No . PB-11-1 955  as 
per  the  challan  chit,  Ex.PW49/l  for  not 
possessing      the       driving       license  and 


70 


accused  Balwant  Singh  signed  the  challan 
chit  and  he  took  into  possession  the  RC 
of  the  Scooter  and  later  on  handed  over 
these  documents  to  CBI .  He  further 
deposed  that  he  identified  the 
photographs  of  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  Ex.PW49/3  and  Ex.PW49/4  and 
he  has  also  identified  both  these  accused 
persons  in  the  court  at  the  time  of  his 
evidence . 

PW-50,  Tirlok  Nath,  a  painter 
working  in  Rehri  market  Sector  7  deposed 
that  in  the  month  of  August,  1995  on  the 
asking  of  Surinder  Sharma,  he  painted  two 
number  plates  bearing  registration  No. 
DBA-9598  and  identify  the  same  in  the 
court  also,   on  the  car,  Ex.P76. 

PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma, 

proprietor  of  Surindera  Spray  paint 
Sector  7  Chandigarh,  deposed  that  he 
knows  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  through 
Madanjit  Singh  @  Channa  and  Dalbir  Singh 
@  Maula  and  he  painted  the  Scooter  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh  bearing  registration  No. 
PCP-2085.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
26.8.1995  on  the  asking  of  Lakhwinder 
Singh  he  repainted  Car  bearing 
registration   No.    DBA-9598    into   off  white 


71 


colour  and  handed  over  the  same  to 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  one  more  person  who 
accompanied  him.  He  further  deposed  that 
on  5.9.1995  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  arrested 
by  the  police  in  his  presence  from  his 
house  at  Village  Kansal  and  he  also 
identified  the  accused  present  in  the 
court.  He  also  identified  the  Scooter  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh  as  Ex.P80  and  deposed 
that  the  scooter  was  recovered  from  the 
possession  of  accused  and  was  taken  into 
possession  by  the  CBI  vide  memo, 
Ex.PW51/l.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
26.8.1995,  the  other  person  accompanying 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  who  was  identified  as 
Gurmeet  Singh,  was  also  arrested  in  his 
presence  and  he  also  identified  the 
photographs  of  these  accused  persons  and 
also  identified  them  in  the  court. 

PW-52,        P.K.Mehra        was  the 

incharge  of  the  deployment  of  the  CRPF 
jawans  at  the  resident  of  CM  Punjab  and 
in  the  escort  and  the  pilot  vehicles  of 
the  CM  and  he  accordingly  named  the 
official  deputed  on  31.8.1995  for  this 
purpose . 

PW-53,    HC    Baljit    Singh    was  the 

driver   of   one   of   the    cars    of   the  convoy 


72 


of  the  deceased  CM  and  he  accordingly 
deposed  that  on  31.8.1995  after  reaching 
civil  secretariat  he  along  with  other 
drivers  of  the  remaining  two  cars  parked 
in  the  porch  and  at  about  5.10  p.m  when 
CM  came  down  and  sat  in  one  of  the  cars, 
which  was  being  driven  by  CJagdish,  a 
bomb  blast  took  place  as  a  result  of 
which  the  driver  Jagdish  Singh  and 
deceased  Beant  Singh  died  at  the  spot 
along  with  other  persons. 

PW-54,     Deep    Inder    Mehta    is  a 

friend  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
Balwant  Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh  and  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  since  1987-88  and  deposed 
that  Scooter  No.  PCP-2085  was  purchased 
by  him  from  one  Harjit  Singh  along  with 
the  affidavit  Ex.D-9.  But  later  on  it  was 
purchased  by  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in 
the  name  of  his  mother  and  father  and 
receipt,  Ex.PW54/l  was  prepared.  Later  on 
he  handed  over  these  documents  to  the 
C.B.I.  He  further  deposed  that  in  the 
month  of  August,  1995  on  the  request  of 
Dilawar  Singh  he  took  him  to  Kamalpreet 
Walia  and  Dilawar  Singh  agreed  to 
purchase  Scooter  from  Kamalpreet  Walia 
bearing  No.  PB-11-1955,  Ex.P77,  and  after 
purchasing  the  same  he  along  with  Dilawar 


73 


Singh  handed  over  the  Scooter  to  accused 
Balwant  Singh. 

PW-55,  Reema  Kahlon  was  working 
as  S.T.D  Operator  in  a  booth  set  up  in 
the  ground  flor  of  house  no. 981  Phase-IV, 
SAS  Nagar  Mohali  under  Avtar  Singh,  owner 
of  the  STD,  and  she  accordingly  deposed 
that  first  floor  of  the  house  was 
occupied  by  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  one 
S.P.Singh,  who  are  the  tenants  of  the 
owner  of  the  STD,  Avtar  Singh  and  about 
2-3  days  prior  to  31.8.1995,  2-3  young 
man  had  visited  the  room  of  Gurmeet  Singh 
and  she  disclosed  this  fact  to  the  C.B.I 
and  also  identified  the  photographs  of 
those  persons  which  includes  the  photo 
graph  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  mark 
YY/2  . 

PW-56,      Manojit      Pal      was  the 

member  of  the  CRPF  Escort  party  deputed 
for  the  security  of  C.M  and  deposed  that 
at  about  5.00  p.m  on  31.8.1995,  when  they 
were  ready  with  their  escort  vehicle,  an 
explosion  took  place  in  the  Civil 
Secretariat  and  he  suffered  injuries  and 
becomes  unconscious. 

PW-57,      Kesar     Dumra,      who  was 


74 


working  as  Peon  in  the  Civil  Secretariat 
also  deposed  about  the  explosion  on 
31 .  8 .1995 . 

PW-58,    Satinder    Kumar,    who  was 

working  as  driver  with  Sardar  Harcharan 
Singh,  then  Health  Minister  of  Punjab, 
also  deposed  about  the  explosion  which 
took  place  in  the  Civil  Secretariat,  when 
he  went  there  along  with  Sardar  Harcharan 
Singh  Brar. 

PW-59,   C.Balwinder  Singh,   who  is 

working  in  the  Motor  Transport  Department 
of  Punjab  Police,  Chandigarh  deposed  that 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  also  working 
with  him  in  the  same  department  and  he 
identifies  the  writing  of  the  Lakhwinder 
Singh  when  shown  to  him  and  deposed  that 
the  document,  Ex.PW59/A  to  Ex.PW59/D  are 
in  writing  of  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  bears 
his  signatures  at  point-A.  He  had  also 
identified  the  hand  writing  of  the 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  on  the 
documents,       Ex.PW51/3,  Ex.PW59/E  to 

Ex.PW59/L  and  he  has  also  identified  the 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  the  Court. 

PW-60,    Raju    Tamir    Haran,  grand 
son    of    deceased    Bhushan        Sirhindi  has 


75 


deposed  that  his  maternal  grand  father 
Bhushan  Sirhindi  was  a  Journalist  and 
accused  Balwant  Singh  was  working  as 
gunman  with  him  and  he  used  to  reside 
with  his  grand  father  and  he  identified 
and  recognized  accused  Balwant  Singh.  He 
also  deposed  that  accused  Balwant  Singh 
had  purchased  a  Green  colour  Bajaj  Chetak 
Scooter,  Ex.P77  and  he  used  to  come  to 
their  residence  on  this  Scooter.  He 
further  deposed  that  he  also  knows 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  who  was  friend  of 
Balwant  Singh  and  he  used  to  visit 
Balwant  Singh  at  their  residence  and 
office  and  he  has  also  identified  the 
photographs  of  Dilawar  Singh  mark-YY  and 
YY/1  to  YY/5.  One  more  fact  disclosed  by 
this  witness  was  that  about  2-3  months 
prior  to  the  incident  in  guestion  he 
attended  a  call  for  Balwant  Singh  and  the 
person  who  was  calling  identified  himself 
as  uncle  of  Balwant  Singh  and  asked  him 
to  convey  the  message  to  Balwant  Singh 
that  he  should  meet  him  at  Gurudwara 
Shish  Ganj ,  Delhi  and  he  accordingly 
passed  on  the  massage.  He  also  identified 
the  hand  writing  of  Balwant  Singh,  on 
Ex.PW60/A,  the  hand  writing  in  the  diary, 
Ex.PW60/5-l  to  Ex.PW60/5-53  and  also 
identified   his    signatures    on  Ex.PW60/BB. 


76 


One  important  fact  which  comes  from  the 
cross  examination  of  this  witness  is  that 
since  this  witness  has  deposed  against 
the  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  when 
opportunity  was  granted  but  Balwant 
Singh,  who  himself  was  conducting  his 
trial,  he  had  given  a  writing  in  his  own 
hands,  Ex. CD/1  in  which  he  admitted  that 
whatever  stated  by  this  witness  is 
correct  and  he  do  not  want  to  cross 
examine  him. 

PW-61,      HC     Sukhbir     Singh  has 

brought  the  service  record  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  and  proved  the  appointment 
letter  of  Dilawar  Singh,  Ex.PW61/A  and 
Ex.PW61/B  and  further  deposed  that 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  was  dismissed  from 
services  vide  order  dated  7.10.1994  w.e.f 
18.9.1994,  as  per  the  order  copy  of  which 
is  EX.PW61/C. 

PW-62,     C.Sukhwinder     Singh  has 

brought  the  service  record  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  proved  his  service 
book,  Ex . PW62 / A  and  deposed  that  accused 
Balwant  Singh  has  joined  as  constable  in 
Punjab  Police  on  1.10.1987  and  he  was 
posted  as  Gunman  with  the  Bhushan 
Sirhindi     a     Press     Reporter     in  Patiala 


77 


since  19.5.1993. 


PW-63,  Avtar  Singh  was  the  owner 
of  the  STD  booth  located  in  Plot  No.  981, 
Phase  IV,Mohali  and  he  accordingly 
deposed  that  on  the  first  floor  of  his 
house  there  was  one  room  set  which  was 
rented  out  by  him  to  one  Satinder  Pal 
Singh  @  Simpi,  who  was  also  sharing  the 
room  with  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  as  co- 
tenant.  He  also  deposed  that  Reema  Kahlon 
was  working  as  STD  Operator  on  his  STD 
booth  and  he  identified  the  hand  writing 
of  Reema  Kahlon  on  the  STD  register  and 
also  identified  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  in 
the  court. 

PW-64,  Arvind  Kumar  Parashar,  an 

employee  of  the  B.P.L  Engineering 
Limited,  brought  the  service  record  of 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  deposed  that 
this  accused  was  working  under  him  and 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  used  to  put  his 
attendance  in  the  attendance  register  and 
he  accordingly  proved  the  attendance 
register,  Ex.PW64/A  to  Ex.PW64/C.  He  also 
proved  leave  card  record  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh,  Ex.PW64/A  and  identified 
the  signatures  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
on    the    same.     He    also    deposed    that  on 


78 


31.8.1995  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  on 
leave.  But  he  was  present  on  his  job  on 
1st  &  2nd  September,  1995  and  thereafter 
he  was  on  leave  on  4th  as  3rd  September  was 
Sunday  and  thereafter  he  attended  his 
duties  on  5.9.1995  but  remained  absent 
thereafter . 

PW-65,    V.K.Maheshwari,     who  was 

posted  as  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  in 
Patiala  House,  Court, New  Delhi  deposed 
that  on  22.1.1996  accused  Balwant  Singh 
was  produced  before  him  for  recording  his 
confession  by  the  CBI  as  per  the  orders 
of  ACMM  and  accordingly  after  complying 
procedural  requirement  and  satisfying 
himself,  that  there  is  no  coercion, 
pressure  or  threat  etc,  he  recorded  the 
confessional  statement  of  accused  on 
23.1.1996,  Ex.PW65/E  and  after  recording 
the  same  it  was  read  over  and  explained 
to  the  accused  who  put  his  signatures  on 
each  page  of  the  same  and  thereafter  he 
certified  it  and  sent  to  ACMM  who  forward 
it  to  CJM,  Chandigarh. 

PW-66,       C.Iqbal      Singh  was 

working  as  a  driver  on  one  of  the  three 
Cars  of  the  deceased  CM.  Accordingly  he 
deposed  that   on   31.8.1995   he  was   on  duty 


79 


as  Driver  on  Car  bearing  registration  No. 
PB-27-6514  and  in  the  evening  when  they 
parked  the  cars  in  VIP  porch  in  the  Civil 
Secretariat  as  the  CM  Beant  Singh  is  to 
go  to  his  house  and  at  about  5.00  PM  when 
Beant  Singh  came  down  and  tried  to  sit  a 
bomb  explosion  took  place  resulting  into 
the  death  of  the  CM  and  other  persons . 

PW-67,  T.P.Yadav,  an  employee 
in  B.P.L  Sanyo  Limited,  deposed  that 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  working  in 
their  concern  and  he  availed  leave  during 
his  job  and  he  handed  over  the  leave 
record  to  the  C.B.I,  as  per  the  memo, 
Ex.PW67/A.  He  also  identifies  the  leave 
card  of  Gurmeet  Singh,  Ex.PW64/B  to 
Ex . PW64/D, which  he  handed  over  to  the 
Police . 

PW-68,      Puran      Chand     was  the 

tenant  in  a  shed  in  the  ground  floor  of 
plot  no. 981  Phase-IV  Mohali  owned  by 
Avtar  Singh  and  he  deposed  that  on  the 
first  floor  of  the  above  building,  above 
the  STD  booth,  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
along  with  one  SP  Singh,  was  residing  and 
he  also  identified  Gurmeet  Singh  in  the 
court  and  he  further  deposed  that  on 
28.8.1995,    when  he  went   into   the   room  of 


80 


accused  Gurmeet  Singh  to  get  some 
medicine  for  toothache,  he  found  that 
five  persons  were  sitting  in  that  room 
including  Gurmeet  Singh  and  when  Gurmeet 
Singh  stated  that  he  has  no  medicine  he 
came  down.  He  further  deposed  that  even 
on  31.8.1995  he  saw  one  of  the  those  four 
persons  in  the  room  of  Gurmeet  Singh  and 
two  boys  had  also  came  in  a  Car  and  then 
went  away  and  one  of  them  was  wearing 
police  uniform  and  later  on,  on  6.9.1995 
he  identified  the  photographs  of  those 
persons.  He      accordingly  identifies 

photographs  mark  FFFF,  YYY-3,  mark  GGGG, 
mark  HHHH  and  disclosed  that  later  on  he 
came  to  know  that  the  person  shown  in 
photo  graph  mark  FFFF  is  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
8.9.1995,  when  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
was  arrested, he  suffered  disclosure 
statement,  Ex.PW68/A  in  his  presence  and 
as  per  that  statement  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  took  the  CBI  Police  party  to 
H. No. 981,  Phase-IV  Mohali  and  a  search  of 
house  was  conducted  and  some  articles 
were  collected  from  the  house  and  were 
taken  into  possession  as  per  the  memo, 
Ex.PW68/B.  He  also  identified  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  as 
the      persons,      who      had     been  visiting 


81 


Gurmeet  Singh  between  26.8.1995  to 
31 . 8 .1995  . 

PW-69,    Madanjit   Singh  Chhina  is 

stated  to  be  a  friend  of  Lakhwinder  Singh 
and  deposed  that  he  met  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  in  the  house  of  Lakhwinder  Singh 
and  later  on  identified  the  photo  graph 
of  Dilawar  Singh  mark  TTT/1,  TTT/2, 
YYY/5.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
31.8.1995  he  met  Lakhwinder  Singh  at 
Shanker  Dhaba  near  Civil  secretariat 
along  with  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  and 
thereafter  on  2.9.1995  he  again  went  to 
Village  Kansal,  where  Lakhwinder  Singh 
and  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  met  him  and 
they  took  liguor  in  the  house  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh. 

PW-70,  Parnab         Sain,  an 

Administrative  Officer  of  National 
Insurance  Company  deposed  that  on 
8.9.1995  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  made  a 
disclosure  statement,  Ex.PW68/A  relating 
to  this  case  and  thereafter  the  search  of 
his  room  was  conducted  and  the 
incriminating  articles  were  recovered  as 
per  the  memo,  Ex.PW68/B  in  his  presence 
and  he  accordingly  identified  the  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  and  his  photographs. 


82 


PW-71,  Rajiv  Singh  was  posted  as 
Reception  Officer  in  the  Office  of  CM  and 
he  accordingly  deposed  regarding  the  name 
and  identity  of  the  person  who  visited 
Beant  Singh  on  31.8.1995. 

PW-72,      Prem     Singh,      who  was 

employee  of  Pritam  Cycle  Stand,  Bus 
Stand,  Patiala  deposed  that  Kirat 
Mohinder  Singh,  was  the  owner  of  the 
Cycle  stand  and  the  Scooter  bearing 
registration  No.  PB-11-1955,  Bajaj  Chetak 
of  Cream  Colour,  Ex.P77,  was  parked  in 
their  cycle  stand  on  31.8.1995  at  6.40 
P.M  and  after  parking  the  scooter  he 
issued  the  slip,  Ex.PW72/l  and  also 
pasted  the  chit  on  the  helmet  Ex.P94 
along  with  the  registration  number  of  the 
Scooter  and  on  10.9.1995  he  identified 
the  photo  graph  of  that  person  as  mark 
QQQQ,  when  in  his  presence  and  in  the 
presence  of  Kirat  Mohinder  Singh  and  the 
Scooter  was  also  taken  into  possession 
and  it  was  searched  there.  On  search  of 
the  dicky  of  the  scooter,  a  cloth  belt, 
Ex.P97  of  Green  Colour  was  recovered  and 
taken  into  possession  safter  converting 
into  sealed  parcel  vide  memo  of  recovery, 
Ex.PW72/2     and  he  also  identified  accused 


83 


Balwant  Singh  as  the  person  who  parked 
the  Scooter  . 

PW-73,    Kirat   Mohinder    Singh  is 

the  owner  of  Cycle  Stand  and  he  also 
corroborated  the  version  of  PW-72  as 
discussed  above. 

PW-74,    Amrik    Singh,    who    was  a 

taxi  driver  on  taxi  bearing  registration 
DAJ-431  deposed  that  on  28.8.1995,  when 
he  was  present  at  the  Janta  Taxi  Stand, 
Patiala,  two  persons  took  his  taxi  for 
Mohali  and  they  loaded  two  bags  and  on 
the  way  they  delivered  the  bags  to  a 
person  standing  near  the  Gurudwara  near 
Bus  Stand  Mohali  and  then  left  his  Taxi. 
He  further  deposed  that  later  on  he 
identified  the  photographs  of  those 
persons  as  mark  UUUU  and  mark  UUUU/1  and 
signed  the  same. 

PW-75,    Jasbir    Singh,    who    was  a 

Tailor  master  running  a  shop  in  the  name 
&  style  of  Stitch  Co  in  AC  Market, 
Patiala,  deposed  that  accused  Balwant 
Singh  used  to  come  to  his  shop  being  a 
Punjab  Police  Official  and  was  known  to 
him  and  on  24.8.1995,  he  along  with  one 
more   person,    who   was    later   on  identified 


84 


as  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  came  to 
his  shop  and  asked  for  stitching  a  cloth 
belt  as  per  the  diagram  prepared  by 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  as  per  the 
measurement  of  that  person,  he 
accordingly  noted  the  measurement  on  the 
bill  book,  copy  of  which  is  Ex.PW75/A-l 
and  they  also  purchased  clothes  for  two 
pants  and  ordered  the  stitching  of  the 
same  with  a  direction  to  deliver  on  the 
same  evening.  He  further  deposed  that 
accused  Balwant  Singh  came  on  the  next 
day  i.e  on  25.8.1995  and  took  the 
delivery  of  one  belt  and  pant  and  he 
placed  order  of  another  cloth  belt  of  the 
same  design  of  green  colour  and  he 
accordingly  noted  this  fact  on  the 
earlier  slip  and  on  27.8.1995  both 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  took  the  delivery  of  pant  and 
second  belt  and  he  also  identified  the 
second  belt  of  green  colour,  article- 
Ex.  P-97,  as  the  same  belt,  which  was 
stitched  on  the  asking  of  Balwant  Singh 
and  further  deposed  on  20.1.1996  accused 
Balwant  Singh  identified  his  shop  on  his 
presence  and  in  the  presence  of  CBI 
official  and  he  handed  over  the  bill  book 
and  the  measurement  slip,  which  was  taken 
into      possession       as       per       the  memo, 


85 


Ex.PW75/B  and  he  also  identified  the 
photographs  of  other  person  mark  WWWW  and 
WWWW/1  and  identified  his  signatures  and 
he  also  identified  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  as  the  other  person,  who 
accompanied  Balwant  Singh. 

PW-76,     Amarjit     Singh,     who  is 

also  tailor  master  and  running  a  shop  in 
the  name  &  style  M/s  Sidhu  Tailors, 
Tripuri  Town,  Patiala  deposed  that  on  the 
asking  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  who  was 
known  to  him,  he  stitched  Police  uniform 
for  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  his  friend 
Dilawar  Sinigh,  as  per  the  bill-cum 
measurement  memo,  Ex.PW7  6/l-A  and 
delivered  the  same  to  them  on  27.8.1995 
and  later  on  he  also  stitched  five  more 
uniforms  on  the  asking  of  Balwant  Singh 
and  delivered  it  to  him  as  per  the  bill 
cum  measurement  slip,  Ex.PW76/l  and  he 
identified  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
photo  graph  of  Dilawar  Singh  in  this 
regard . 

PW-77,       C.Pala   Ram,    who   was  on 

duty  at  VIP  gate  and  in  whose  presence 
this  bomb  blast  took  place,  accordingly 
informed  the  matter  to  the  police  as  to 
how  the  bomb  blast  took  place  and  deposed 


86 


accordingly . 

PW-78,    D.K.Tripathy    was    the  SP 

CM  Security  and  he  accordingly  deposed 
about  the  security  arrangement  and  the 
placement  of  cavalcade  of  the  CM  under 
different  security  agencies  and  also 
deposed    that    on    31.8.95,  he    was  on 

duty  as  SP  Security  and  at  about  5.05 
p.m,  when  the  CM  Beant  Singh,  was  to 
leave  the  Civil  Secretariat  for  U.T  Guest 
house  and  when  he  was  about  to  get  into 
the  car  a  powerful  explosion  took  place 
resulting  into  the  death  of  other  persons 
and  CM  and  he  was  also  injured  in  the 
blast     and  becomes  unconscious. 

PW-79,     Gurdeep    Singh,     who  was 

also  working  as  Incharge  of  the  CM 
Security  deposed  about  the  security 
arrangement  of  the  Beant  Singh  and  the 
formation  of  cavalcade  and  further 
deposed  that  after  receiving  the 
information  of  explosion  he  rushed  at  the 
spot  and  found  that  deceased  Beant  Singh 
died  because  of  explosion  along  with 
other  persons . 

PW-80,     Kirpal     Singh,     who  was 

working   as   Account   Officer   in   the  Office 


87 


of  Chief  Engineer  deptt.  of  Telecoms  was 
the  person  in  whose  presence,  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  since  proclaimed 
offender  suffered  a  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW80/l  and  he  signed  the  same  as  an 
attesting  witness  and  deposed 

accordingly . 

PW-81,      Raghubir  Singh,    who  was 

the  Sarpanch  of  Village  Jhingra  Kalan  and 
in  whose  presence  the  disclosure 
statement  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  was 
recorded  and  the  recovery  of  RDX  was 
made,  deposed  that  accused  Nasib  Singh  is 
the  resident  of  Village  Jhingra  Kalan  and 
on  18.9.1995,  he  was  called  by  the  CBI 
authorities  in  the  house  of  Nasib  Singh 
where  RDX  was  recovered  and  taken  into 
possession  by  the  Police  but  he  failed 
to  support  the  story  of  the  prosecution 
in  total  but  admitted  that  disclosure 
statement  of  accused  Nasib  Singh 
Ex.PW81/l,  seizure  memo  of  the  RDX 
Ex.PW81/2,  the  paper  chit  containing  the 
sample      seal,      Ex.PW81/3  bears  his 

signatures  and      during      his  cross 

examination  he  admitted  that  RDX  was 
weighed  and  found  to  be  13kg . -7 0 Ogms .  and 
sealed  in  his  presence  in  the  katta 
article    P-98.    He    also    admitted    that  he 


88 


signed  these  documents  accepting  the 
version  of  the  Police  mentioned  therein 
as  correct  voluntarily  without  any 
coercion  or  force,  being  the  sarpanch  of 
the  Village.  He  also  admitted  that  he 
never  made  any  complaint  to  any  police 
authorities  regarding  no  recovery  of  any 
RDX  from  the  possession  of  accused  Nasib 
Singh . 

PW-82,    Dr.R.K.Banta   was    the  SMO 

on  duty  on  31.8.1995  and  he  accordingly 
deposed  that  all  the  injured  brought  to 
the  P.G.I  were  examined  by  him  and  under 
his  instructions  by  the  various  Doctors 
and  the  medico  legal  reports  were 
prepared . 

PW-83,  Jasbir  Singh,  owner  of 
H.N0.68-A,  Rattan  Nagar  Patiala  deposed 
that  one  room  atop  the  porch  on  the  1st 
floor  was  on  rent  with  accused  Balwant 
Singh  and  he  accordingly  identified  the 
accused  Balwant  Singh  in  the  court  and 
further  deposed  that  on  5.9.95  this  room 
was  searched  by  the  CBI  authorities  in 
his  presence  and  all  the  articles  found 
there  were  taken  into  possession  as  per 
memo  Ex.PW83/l  which  was  signed  by  him. 


89 


PW-84,  Gurdev  Chand,  Custom 
Inspector  was  the  witness  in  whose 
presence  the  house  where  accused  Balwant 
Singh  was  residing  was  searched  and 
articles  were  recovered  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW83/l  and  he  deposed  accordingly  on 
this  aspect. 

PW-85,       G.D.Achint,       who  was 

working  as  Personal  Assistant  to  AGM  of 
Central  Bank  of  India,  Chandigarh,  was  a 
witness  in  whose  presence  H. No. 1223 
Mohalla  Gurunanak  Nagar,  Patiala,  where 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  was  residing,  was 
searched  and  he  accordingly  deposed  that 
all  the  articles  recovered  from  the  room 
were  taken  into  possession  as  per  memo, 
Ex. PW85/1 . 

PW-86,  Balbir  Singh,  then 
Special  Judicial  Magistrate,  CBI,  Punjab, 
Patiala  deposed  that  on  22.9.1995  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  @  Tara  suffered  a  confession 
and  after  satisfying  himself  about  the 
requirements  of  the  law,  he  recorded  the 
confession  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
Ex. PW86/6 . 

PW-87,    Rajinder    Kumar    was  then 
Metopolitan    Magistrate, New    Delhi    and  he 


90 


deposed  that  on  6.1.96  on  the  request  of 
the  prosecution  he  recorded  the 
statements  of  witnesses  Tejinder  Pal 
Singh, Gurpreet  Singh  and  Gurinder  Singh 
Ex.PW87/7,  Ex.PW87/ll,  Ex.PW87/17 

respectively . 

PW-88,  Bodh  Ram  Garg, Senior 
Telephone  Operator,  deposed  that  on 
12.9.1995  CBI  conducted  the  search  of 
house  of  Jaswant  Singh,  resident  of 
Village  Mehra j ,  in  his  presence  and 
recovered  the  articles  including  an  album 
containing  the  photographs  as  per  the 
memo,  Ex.PW88/l  and  all  the  photographs, 
were  also  signed  by  him.  He  further 
deposed  that  the  said  Jaswant  Singh  was 
also  present  at  the  time  of  search  in  his 
house . 

PW-89,     Inspector     Hardip  Singh 

was  a  witness  in  whose  presence  H.N0.68-A 
Rattan  Nagar,  Patiala,  was  searched  and 
all  the  articles  lying  there  were 
recovered  as  per  memo,  Ex.PW83/l  and 
deposed  accordingly. 

PW-90,     D.P.Singh,     who    was  the 

Chief  Investigating  Officer  of  this  case 
from     4.9.1995     to     7.9.1995,  accordingly 


91 


deposed  about  the  investigation  carried 
out  by  him  during  these  period. 

PW-91,  Ram  Singh,  who  was  a  co- 
employee  of  accused  Navjot  Singh, 
identifies  the  hand  writing  and 
signatures  of  Navjot  Singh  on  the 
documents,  Ex.PW90/l  to  Ex.PW90/ll  and 
the  writing  in  the  diary,  Ex.PW91/23  to 
Ex.PW91/30  and  deposed  accordingly. 

PW-92,    Gurpreet    Singh,    who  was 

also  a  co-employee  of  accused  Navjot 
Singh,  identifies  the  hand  writing  and 
signature  of  Navjot  Singh  on  the 
documents,  Ex.PW90/l  to  Ex.PW90/13  as 
well  as  on  the  documents,  Ex.PW91/12  to 
Ex.PW91/22  but  he  refused  to  identity  the 
hand  writing  and  the  signatures  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh  on  the  documents 
Ex.PW91/23  to  Ex.PW91/30  and  deposed 
accordingly . 

PW-93,  Major  S.S.Bedi,   who  was  a 

security  Adviser  in  Ranbaxy  Lab,  where 
accused  Navjot  Singh  used  to  work,  handed 
over  the  documents  related  to  the  service 
record  of  accused  Navjot  Singh  to  CBI  and 
accordingly  deposed  that  he  handed  over 
the    documents,     Ex.PW91/l    to  Ex.PW91/13, 


92 


which  were  taken  into  possession  as  per 
memo,  Ex.PW93/l. 

PW-94,   Gurpreet  Singh,   who  was  a 

friend  of  PW-95,  Tejinder  Pal  Singh, 
deposed  that  during  his  stay  in  the 
Hostel  of  Jaswant  Rai  Chauhan,  College 
Nagpur,  he  met  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Dilawar  Singh,  who  were  friend  of 
Tejinder  Pal  Singh  and  they  used  to  stay 
in  their  room  in  Laxmi  Nagar,  Nagpur  and 
he  accordingly  identified  the  photographs 
of  accused  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
1.9.1995  his  friend  Tejinder  Pal  Singh 
told  him  that  a  phone  call  has  been 
received  from  Balwant  Singhj  that  he  is 
coming  to  Nagpur  because  he  had  killed 
Beant  Singh  and  accordingly  on  2.9.1995 
at  about  5.06  p.m,  accused  Balwant  Singh 
reached  Nagpur  and  then  went  to  Amba 
Jhari  along  with  Tejinder  Pal  Singh  and 
he  also  went  there  and  met  them,  where 
accused  Balwant  Singh  disclosed  all  the 
details  under  which,  he  and  his  other  co- 
accused  killed  S. Beant  Singh.  Thereafter 
he (Balwant  Singh)  stayed  in  their  room 
and  on  the  next  day,  he  was  shifted  to 
some  Hotel  and  he  stayed  there  in  the 
name  of  Sandeep  Sharma  and  he  accordingly 


93 


proved  the  record  of  Hotel  in  this  regard 
to  be  in  his  hands  and  further  deposed 
that     accused  Balwant      Singh  further 

resides  at  other  Hotels  of  Nagpur. 

PW-95,    Tejinder    Pal    Singh,  who 

was  friend  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  has 
also  deposed  as  per  the  facts  disclosed 
by  PW-94,  Gurpreet  Singh  also  deposed 
that  he  was  knowing  Balwant  Singh  & 
Dilawar  Singh,  as  they  were  residing  in 
the  same  street  and  were  his  childhood 
friends.  He  also  reiterated  the  facts 
disclosed  by  PW-94  and  proved  the  extra 
judicial  confession  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh  in  detail  and  how  and  where  Balwant 
Singh  was  kept  by  him  at  Nagpur  and  other 
places . 

PW-96,  Gurmeet  Singh,  a  Dhaba 
owner,  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  along  with  one  young  man 
visited  his  dhaba  in  the  after  noon  and 
asked  for  the  lunch  and  he  accordingly 
identified  the  photographs  of  those 
persons  and  also  identified  the  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  in  the  court. 

PW-97,     Shanker    Lai    Yadav,  who 

was     also     running     a     dhaba     near  Civil 


94 


Secretariat  near  local  bus  stand  deposed 
that  he  was  knowing  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  being  a  driver  Constable  in  Punjab 
Civil  Secretariat  and  on  31.8.1995 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  along  with  Maula 
and  Channa  came  to  his  dhaba  at  about 
1.00  PM  and  took  meal  and  went  away  and 
he  identifies  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in 
the  court  in  this  regard. 

PW-98,    Balwinder   Singh,    who  was 

a  witness  of  identity  of  the  accused 
persons,  failed  to  support  prosecution 
and  was  declared  hostile. 

PW-99,     Chamkaur    Singh,     who  is 

brother  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  is  one 
of  the  most  material  witnesses  of  the 
prosecution  and  deposed  that  on  30.8.95 
he  met  his  brother  Dilawar  Singh  for  the 
last  time  along  with  Balwant  Singh  as 
they  stayed  in  his  house  for  the  night 
and  on  the  next  morning  they  left  his 
house  in  the  white  colour  ambassador  car 
bearing  No.  DBA-9598  and  later  on  he  came 
to  know  that  this  car  is  involved  in  the 
bomb  blast  which  took  place  in  Civil 
Secretariat  killing  Chief  Minister  and 
other  persons  and  came  to  know  that  his 
brother  Dilawar  Singh  is   involved  in  this 


95 


assassination  along  with  accused  Balwant 
Singh  and  he  accordingly  identify  the 
photo  graph  of  accused  Balwant  Singh, 
Gurmeet  Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  his 
brother  Dilawar  Singh  and  also  identified 
them  in  the  court  and  further  deposed  on 
5.9.1995  he  identifies  two  legs  and  a 
skull  to  be  of  his  brother  and  thereafter 
their  blood  samples  were  also  taken  and 
ultimately  the  two  legs  and  the  skull  was 
handed  over  to  them  for  cremation  on 
their  application  and  he  accordingly 
deposed  all  the  above  facts  in  detail. 

PW-100,    Dilbagh    Singh,    who  was 

working  in  the  Intelligence  Branch  and 
was  handling  counter  intelligence  and 
counter  terrorism  cases,  deposed  about 
the  constitution,  modus  operandi  and 
working  of  various  militant  outfits 
including  Babbar  Khalsa  International, 
which  has  planned  the  murder  of  deceased 
Beant  Singh  and  he  accordingly  produced 
the  copies  of  the  records  relating  to  the 
activities  of  the  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  and  the  statement  of  Babbar 
Khalsa  International,  after  the  murder  of 
CM,  Ex.P-137  to  Ex.P-149,  showing  how 
Babbar  Khalsa  International  hatched  the 
conspiracy    to    kill    the    Beant    Singh  and 


96 


how  they  reacted  after  this  incident. 

PW-101,        Satwinder       Singh  @ 
Satwinder     Pal     Singh     @     Simpy     was  the 

person  who  was  residing  with  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  in  H. No. 981  Phase-IV 
Mohali,  owned  by  Avtar  Singh  and  he 
accordingly  deposed  that  he  along  with 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  took  this  house  on 
rent  and  thereafter  he  becomes  friendly 
with  Gurmeet  Singh  and  during  a,  marriage 
ceremony  Gurmeet  Singh  introduced 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and  later  on, 
prior  to  this  occurrence  on  28.8.1995 
some  friends  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
including  Dilawar  Singh,  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  stayed  in  their  room  and  were 
found  by  him  doing  something  on  news 
paper  and  on  29.8.1995,  all  of  them  left 
the  room  and  later  on  he  identified 
photographs  of  all  of  these  persons  mark- 
00000,  mark-PPPPP,  mark-QQQQQ  and  he  also 
identified  all  these  accused  persons  in 
the  court. 

PW-102,     Kuljit     Singh     was  the 

school  mate  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
accordingly  deposed  about  the  education 
and    posting    of    Balwant    Singh    in  Punjab 


97 


Police  and  his  residing  at  H.N0.68-A 
Rattan  Nagar,  Patiala.  He  also  deposed 
that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  present  in  the 
court  was  introduced  to  him  by  Balwant 
Singh  along  with  his  other  friends 
Tejinder,  Gurmeet  Singh,  Charanjit  Singh 
etc.  Lastly,  he  deposed  that  on  1.9.1995 
accused  Balwant  Singh  came  to  his  Quarter 
near  G.R.P,  Police  Station,  Ludhiana  and 
he  was  perplexed  at  that  time  and  was 
also  clean  shaven  and  on  inguiry  accused 
Balwant  Singh  deposed  that  since  he  and 
his  companions  had  committed  the  murder 
of  Beant  Singh,  he  i.e  PW-102,  should 
inform  his  family  at  Raijona  not  to 
disclose  anything  about  his  whereabouts. 
He  further  deposed  that  Balwant  Singh 
also  disclosed  that  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  acted  as  human  bomb  and  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  drove  Dilawar  Singh  in 
a  Ambassador  Car  to  Civil  Secretariat  and 
that  car  remain  parked  there.  He  also 
identified  the  photographs  of  the  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  and  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
besides  identifying  them  in  the  court. 

PW-103,    Dinesh  Kumar   Sharma  was 

the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  at  Patiala 
Courts  House,  New  Delhi  in  the  month  of 
December,     1995     and    on     the     reguest  of 


98 


C.B.I,  on  16.12.1995,  he  recorded  the 
confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  @ 
Shera  and  accordingly  deposed  about  all 
the  proceedings  for  recording  the 
confession  and  also  deposed  that  he 
recorded  the  confession  of  this  accused, 
Ex.PW103/G  after  satisfying  that  he  is 
not  under  any  threat,  durance  and 
coercion  and  voluntarily  made  the  same. 

PW-104,  Raman  Kumar  was  friend 
of  Satinder  Pal  Singh  @  Simpy,  who 
deposed  that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was 
sharing  room  with  that  Satinder  Pal  Singh 
@  Simpy  and  further  deposed  that  on 
1.9.1995,  when  he  visited  the  room,  he 
found  that  apart  from  Gurmeet  Singh,  four 
other  persons  were  sitting  there.  But  he 
failed  to  identify  any  of  the  accused 
persons . 

PW-105,     Avinash    Mehta    was  the 

Superintendent  of  Central  Excise  and 
Custom  Chandigarh  in  the  year  1996  and 
he  accordingly  deposed  that  the  hand 
writing  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh  were  taken  in  their 
presence  in  Hindi,  English  and  Punjabi 
and  he  accordingly  attested  the  same. 


99 


PW-106,     H . L . Ramchandani     was  a 

witness,  in  whose  presence  the  specimen 
signatures  and  the  writing  in  English  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  was  taken,  and  he 
accordingly  deposed  about  this  fact. 

PW-107,    Sapinder   Singh   @  Pappu, 

who  was  the  owner-cum-driver  of  Truck 
bearing  registration  No.  PB-12-A-7 947 , 
deposed  that  he  knows  accused  Shamsher 
Singh  @  Shera  being  related  to  him  but  he 
failed  to  deposed  anything  further 
against  the  accused  despite  the  fact  that 
he  was  the  witness,  who  took  his  Truck, 
on  the  asking  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh, 
towards  Ajnala  side  along  with  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  brought  two  bags 
of  RDX.  However,  when  he  was  cross 
examined  by  the  Public  Prosecutor,  he 
admitted  that  on  15.11.1995,  he  made 
statement  before  the  Metropolitan 
Magistrate,  Delhi,  Ex.PW107/l  voluntarily 
and  without  any  threat  and  he  admitted 
that  this  statement  was  read  over  and 
explained  to  him  and  he  signed  the  same 
but  he  alleged  that  he  had  made  this 
statement  under  the  pressure  of  the 
Police . 

PW-108,    Paramjit    Singh    was  the 


100 


Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Tis  Hazari 
Court,  Delhi  in  the  month  of  November, 
1995  and  he  deposed  that  on  the  request 
of  the  CBI,  he  recorded  the  statement  of 
Sapinder  Singh  @  Pappu,  Ex.PW107/l  after 
satisfying  himself  that  the  witness  is 
making  the  statement  without  any  duress, 
threat  or  pressure  and  he  recorded  the 
same  thereafter. 

PW-109,    Inderjeet   Singh,    who  is 

a  Granthi,  although  failed  to  support  the 
prosecution  but  when  he  was  declared 
hostile  and  cross  examined  by  the  Public 
Prosecutor,  he  admitted  that  once  he  went 
to  Karol  Bagh,  Delhi  where  accused 
Paramjit  Singh,  who  is  being  tried 
separately,  met  him  there  and  thereafter 
he  stayed  in  the  house  of  sister  of 
accused  Paramjit  Singh.  He  further 
admitted  that  at  Delhi,  at  one  point  of 
time  he,  accused  Paramjit  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  who  was  identified  by 
him  in  the  court,  travelled  together  and 
went  to  the  house  of  one  sikh  gentleman 
and  demanded  a  sum  of  Rs .  2  lakhs  from 
that  person. 

PW-110,    Manohar   Singh   failed  to 
support   the   prosecution   and   was  declared 


101 


hostile . 

PW-111,  Mohan  Pal,  resident  of 
Village  Rasoli,  Tehsil  Rajgarh  deposed 
that  in  May,  1995  one  Surinder  @  Chhinda 
came  to  his  village  along  with  three 
youngmen,  Dilawar  Singh,  Maulla  and  Tari, 
with  a  proposal  to  take  an  apple  orchard 
on  lease  and  he  accordingly  took  them  to 
Village  Orchard's  but  they  could  not 
succeed  in  getting  any  one  and  he  also 
identified  the  photographs  of  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh  and 
also  identified  accused  Balwant  Singh. 

PW-112,    Chunni  Lai  Wall   was  the 

Superintendent,  Custom  Department 

Chandigarh,  in  the  year  1995,  and  deposed 
that  the  specimen  signatures  and  hand 
writing  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was 
taken  in  his  presence. 

PW-113,    Surinder  Kumar,    who  was 

friend  of  PW  Mohan  Pal,  deposed  that  he 
along  with  Tari,  Maulla  &  Dilawar  visited 
the  Village  of  PW-111,  Mohan  Pal,  to  take 
some  orchard  on  lease.  He  also  deposed 
that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  also 
with  them  at  that  time  and  he  also 
identified     the     photographs     of  Dilawar 


102 


Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh.  He  further 
deposed  that  after  the  assassination  of 
Beant  Singh,  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh  met  him  on  the  3rd  day 
and  all  of  them  consumed  liquor  in  the 
room  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  he 
also  identified  the  photographs  of 
Dilawar  Singh. 

PW-114,    Dalbir    Singh    @  Maulla, 

who  was  friend  of  Madanjit  Singh  Chhina, 
Surinder  Singh  Chhina  and  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  while  identifying  the 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  the  court, 
deposed  that  he  also  knows  the  friend  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  named  Balwant, 
Dilawar  and  Lakhwinder  Singh,  who  was 
having  one  Scooter  bearing  registration 
No.  PCP-2085,  Ex.P80.  He  further  deposed 
that  he  visited  the  Village  of  Mohan  Pal 
along  with  these  accused  persons.  He 
further  deposed  that  on  30.8.1995,  on  the 
request  of  Dilawar  Singh,  he  took  accused 
Balwant  Singh  to  the  shop  of  Surinder 
painter  on  the  Scooter  of  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  where  Dilawar  Singh  was  already 
present  and  Balwant  Singh  took  out  a  pant 
from  the  Scooter  and  handed  over  the  same 
to  Dilawar  Singh  and  he  also  noticed  the 
Ambassador    Car    bearing    registration  No. 


103 


DBA-9598 . 


He  further  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995, 
accused  Balwant  Singh  again  met  him  at 
the  dhaba  at  12.00  noon  and  he  was 
accompanied  by  one  more  person  and  later 
on  in  the  evening,  he  heard  the  blast  and 
when  returned  to  his  shop,  Lakhwinder 
Singh  met  him  there  being  perplexed  and 
then  in  the  evening  he  (Lakhwinder) 
disclosed  that  Beant  Singh  has  been 
killed  in  bomb  blast  and  he  with  help  of 
accused  Dilawar  Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  caused  this  blast. 
He  further  deposed  that  on  the  next  date 
of  the  blast  he  saw  the  photographs  of 
the  car  in  the  news  paper  and  found  that 
it  was  the  same  car  which  was  taken  by 
Balwant  Singh  &  Dilawar  Singh. 

PW-115,  S.S.Basoya,  Junior 
Scientific  Officer,  is  Finger  Print 
Expert  and  he  deposed  that  on  7.10.1995 
and  12.10.1995,  he  took  the  finger  prints 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  on  the 
sheets,  Ex.PW115/l  to  Ex.PW115/15  and  he 
also  identified  the  photographs  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Ex.PWlll/3  and  mark- 
OOOOO. 


104 


PW-116,     Anil    Kumar,     who     is  a 

Tailor  Master  and  running  a  tailor  shop 
in  Village  Kansal,  deposed  that  he  knows 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  @  Lakha  being 
resident  of  Village  Kansal  and  being  a 
constable  in  Punjab  Police.  He  further 
deposed  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
came  to  his  shop  with  a  pant  and 
reguested  him  to  loose  waist  of  the  pant 
to  its  maximum  in  the  presence  of  Maulla 
and  he  handed  over  the  pant  after  doing 
the  needful . 

PW-117,  Gian  Singh,  failed  to 
support  the  prosecution  and  was  declared 
hostile . 

PW-118,  Kishan  Chand  was  running 
a  dhaba  in  the  name  and  style  of 
Annapurna  Dhaba  and  deposed  that  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  PW  Dalbir  Singh  @ 
Maula  were  known  to  him  and  on  31.8.1995 
before  the  bomb  blast,  he  saw  two  Sikh 
persons  on  Scooter  with  Dalbir  Singh  @ 
Maulla  but  he  could  not  identify  them. 

PW-119,     Dr.Gopalji    Mishra,  who 

was  posted  as  Director,  Forensic  Science 
Laboratory,  Punjab,  Chandigarh  at  the 
time  of  this  bomb  blast,    deposed  that  on 


105 


the  request  of  the  SSP  Crime,  Chandigarh 
he  reached  at  the  spot  to  find  out  the 
manner  and  the  nature  of  the  blast,  and 
he  accordingly  took  about  70-75 
photographs  of  the  place  of  occurrence 
and  on  the  next  morning  of  1.9.1995,  he 
again  took  some  more  photographs  and 
ultimately  on  2.9.1995,  he  went  to  the 
mortuary  and  took  the  photographs  of  the 
skull  and  two  legs  and  he  accordingly 
after  developing  and  printing  the 
photographs,  handed  over  the  same  to  the 
CBI  and  he  identified  all  the 
photographs,  Ex.PW119/l  to  Ex.PW119/94. 
He  also  brought  the  negatives  of  the 
photographs  in  the  court  and  proved  the 
photographs  accordingly. 

PW-120,  P.C.Thakur  deposed  that 
on  19.9.1995  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
gave  specimen  hand  writing  and  signatures 
in  his  presence. 

PW-121,  Anil  Bhatia,  resident  of 
Ghaziabad,  deposed  that  he  spotted 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  his 
neighboring  house  of  Ram  Singh  and 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  also  suffered 
two  disclosure  statements  before  him, 
Ex.PW121/l     and    Ex.PW121/2     on  23.1.1996 


106 


and  he  took  the  police  party  to  H.No.A- 
341-A  Nand  Gram  Ghaziabad  and  got 
recovered  the  map  prepared  by  him, 
Ex.PW121/3,  and  same  was  taken  into 
possession  as  per  memo,  Ex.PW121/4  and 
thereafter  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
took  them  to  the  STD  Booths  located  at 
Meerut  road  and  identified  the  same  in 
his  presence. 

PW-122,  Bhupinder  Singh,  again 
resident  of  Ghaziabad  deposed  that  he 
identifies  the  photographs  of  Ram  Singh  @ 
Kuldip,  who  had  purchased  a  house  bearing 
No.341-A  at  his  instance.  He  further 
deposed  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
used  to  visit  the  house  of  Ram  Singh  and 
he  identified  him  and  accused  suffered 
two  disclosure  statements,  Ex.PW121/l  and 
Ex.PW121/2  in  his  presence  and  thereafter 
got  recovered  a  map  from  the  house  of  Ram 
Singh,  Ex.PW121/3  and  same  was  taken  into 
possession  vide  memo,  Ex.PW121/4  and 
thereafter  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
also  identified  the  STD  booths  at  Meerut 
road  and  he  also  identified  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  the  court. 

PW-123,    Harbinder   Singh,    who  is 

relative   of   Manjinder    Singh,    residing  in 


107 


U.K,  deposed  that  he  handed  over  letters 
written  by  Manjinder  Singh  to  him,  to  the 
C.B.I,  Ex.PW123/2,  Ex.PW123/5,  Ex.PW123/6 
and  also  identified  the  photographs  of 
Manjinder  Singh. 

PW-124,  Jasbir  Singh, 

Supervisor  of  the  Gurdwara  Sheesh  Ganj , 
Delhi,  deposed  that  he  was  working  as  a 
Clerk  and  he  proved  the  entry  made  by  the 
visitors  in  the  register  maintained  for 
the  stay  of  devotees  in  the  Gurdwara  and 
proved  the  record  of  the  same. 

PW-125,     Dalbir    Singh,     who  was 

working  as  Sewadar  in  the  Gurdwara, 
Sheesh-Ganj  also  proved  the  entry  made  in 
the  visitors  register  regarding  room 
no. 37,  Ex.PW124/A  which  was  allotted  to 
Manjinder  Singh,  Paramjit  Singh  and 
Ujjagar  Singh     on  19.06.1995. 

PW-126,  Munish  Chadha,  Manager 
in  Surya  Hotel,  brought  the  visitors 
register  of  his  Hotel,  which  was  taken 
into  possession  by  the  C.B.I  and  he 
deposed  that  Sandeep  Sharma  and  Jaskaran 
Singh  stayed  in  the  Hotel  from  23.11.1995 
to  25.11.1995  in  room  no. 206  as  per 
entry     made      at      serial      no.  93      of  the 


108 


visitors  register,  copy  of  which  is 
Ex.PW95/30  and  Ex.PW95/31. 

PW-127,     Balbir    Singh,     who  was 

friend  of  Harbir  Singh  Bhullar  settled  in 
Canada,  deposed  that  Harbir  Singh  Bhullar 
used  to  send  money  to  one  Hundal  and 
they  know  this  fact  as  Harbir  Singh 
Bhullar  used  to  inform  this  fact  to  them 
on  their  telephone  to  further  inform  to 
Hundal . 

PW-128,    Joginder   Singh,    who  was 

driver  of  a  IAS  Officer  and  on  31.8.1995, 
he  was  on  duty  and  present  near  V.I.P 
gate,  deposed  that  the  bomb  blast  took 
place  in  which  the  deceased  CM  died. 

PW-129,  Upkar  Singh  also  deposed 
about  the  blast  which  he  heard  while 
sitting  in  the  office  of  the  DIG  Crime. 

PW-130,   Rajesh  Malhotra,   who  was 

running  a  STD  booth  in  Nandgram  deposed 
that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
identified  his  STD  booth  at  his  own  and 
he  signed  memo,  Ex.PW121/4,  prepared  by 
the  CBI  in  this  regard  in  the  presence  of 
some  other  witnesses  and  he  also 
identified      the      accused      Jagtar  Singh 


109 


Hawara  in  the  court  and  his  photographs 
and  disclosed  that  he  used  to  make 
international  calls  to  Germany  from  his 
STD  booth. 

PW-131,     Anoop     Singh,     who  was 

working  as  Manager  of  Nanda  Guest  House, 
Panipat,  deposed  that  one  Sandeep  Sharma 
stayed  in  their  Guest  House  as  per  entry 
dated  13.9.1995  and  proved  the  entries 
made  in  the  visitors  register  by  that 
person,  Ex.PW131/2. 

PW-132,        Vinod       Kumar  Vats, 

Manager  in  the  Surya  Guest  House,  Delhi 
also  brought  the  visitors  register  of  the 
Guest  House,  Ex.PW123/7  and  deposed  that 
as  per  entry  made  at  serial  no. 236 
dt . 23 . 6 . 1995,  one  Manjinder  Singh  stayed 
in  their  guest  house  from  23.6.1995  along 
with  another  Sikh  young  man  and  during 
the  stay,  one  more  person  joined  them  and 
deposed  that  he  identifies  the  photograph 
of  sikh  person  and  further  identified  the 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  who  came  to  meet  Manjinder  Singh 
in  their  Guest  House  and  he  also 
identified  the  photographs  of  Manjinder 
Singh . 


110 


PW-133,      Dinesh     Chand,      a  STD 

booth  owner  of  Ghaziabad,  deposed  that  on 
23.1.1996,  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
identified  his  STD  booth  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW121/5  and  also  identified  him  in  the 
court . 

PW-134,  Murli  Dhar,  again  a  PCO 
owner  of  Farukhabad,  deposed  that  one 
Tony  was  known  to  him  and  he  used  to  make 
International  calls  from  his  STD  booth  to 
Germany  and  Norway. 

PW-135,  Manish  Pal  deposed  that 
on  the  asking  of  one  Ashok  Kumar, 
resident  of  Fatehgarh,  he  arranged  the 
house  of  one  Mr.  Gupta  on  rent  for  said 
Ashok  Kumar  and  he  also  visited  said 
Ashok  Kumar  in  the  Hotel,  where  two 
persons,  one  Pardeep  Kumar  and  one 
unknown  was  present,  and  later  on  he 
identified  that  third  person  from  the 
photograph,  Ex.PW135/l  and  came  to  know 
that  his  name  is  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and 
the  other  person,  who  represented  himself 
as  Pardeep  Kumar,  was  actually  Balwant 
Singh,  whose  photo,  graph  he  identified 
as  Ex.PW95/18. 

PW-136,     San jay    Kumar,     who  was 


111 


also  having  a  P.  CO  in  the  Awas  Vikas 
Colony,  Farukhabad,  deposed  that  as  per 
the  PCO  register,  Ex.PW136/l  which  he 
handed  over  to  the  C.B.I,  some  ISD  calls 
were  made  to  Norway  on  3.12.1995  and  he 
deposed  as  per  those  entries. 

PW-137,    Radhey  Sham,    who   is  the 

owner  of  the  Hotel  Anant  Railway  Road, 
Farukhabad,  deposed  that  as  per  the 
visitors  register  of  the  Hotel, 
Ex.PW95/94,  as  per  the  entries,  one 
person  giving  his  name  as  Ashok  Kumar, 
stayed  in  his  Hotel  in  the  month  of 
October,  1995  on  three  different  dates  as 
per  the  entries  made  in  the  register  and 
2-3  persons  also  visited  him.  He 
identified  accused  Balwant  Singh  as  one 
of  those  persons,  who  stayed  with  that 
Ashok  Kumar  but  failed  to  identify  the 
other  one. 

PW-138,     Harish    Kumar,     who  was 

working  as  Receptionist  at  Hotel 
President,  Nagpur  deposed  that  as  per  the 
visitors  register,  Ex.PW94/3,  one  Sandeep 
Sharma  checked  in  their  Hotel  on  3.9.1995 
at  about  3.20  p.m,  and  checked  out  on 
5.9.1995  and  made  the  entires,  Ex.PW94/l 
in  this  regard  and  two  other  persons  also 


112 


came  with  him  at  that  time  and  he 
identified  Balwant  Singh  as  the  person, 
who  stayed  there  in  the  name  of  Sandeep 
Sharma . 

PW-139,      Don     Basco     Joseph,  a 

Receptionist  of  Hotel  President,  Nagpur 
deposed  that  as  per  the  register, 
Ex.PW94/3,  accused  Balwant  Singh  stayed 
in  their  Hotel  in  the  name  of  Sandeep 
Sharma  as  per  the  entry,  Ex.PW94/l  and  he 
also  identified  accused  Balwant  Singh  in 
the  Court. 

PW-140,   Radhey  Parkunta,   who  was 

working  as  Watchman  in  Mudra  Complex, 
Nagpur,  deposed  that  for  some  times,  he 
worked  at  the  PCO  and  as  per  the  entries 
in  the  PCO  register,  Ex.PW140/l  on 
4.9.1995,  some  calls  were  made  and  he 
handed  over  those  records  to  the  police. 

PW-141,   C.Varinder  Rana,   who  was 

at  duty  on  31.8.1995  at  the  Civil 
Secretariat  at  VIP  Gate,  deposed  about 
the  bomb  blast  and  stated  that  he  also 
suffered  injuries  in  this  blast. 

PW-142,    Kulwant    Singh,    who  was 

working    as    driver    with    J.S.Maini,  then 


113 


Principal  Secretary  and  who  was  on  duty 
with  Mr.Maini  on  31.8.1995,  also  deposed 
about  the  bomb  blast. 

PW-143,     C. Bakshish     Singh,  who 

was  on  duty  on  the  VIP  gate  of  the  Punjab 
Civil  Secretariat,  deposed  about  the  bomb 
blast  and  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh  and 
also  deposed  that  he  also  suffered 
in j  uries . 

PW-144,     D . P . Sehrawat ,     who  was 

working  as  an  Assistant  in  the  office  of 
Director  General  of  Health  Services  at 
Nirman  Bhawan  ,  New  Delhi,  was  the  person 
in  whose  presence  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  has  given  his  specimen  hand 
writing  and  signatures,  Ex.PW144/l  to 
Ex.PW144/17  and  he  deposed  that  he 
attested  the  sheets  accordingly. 

PW-145,     Gurbax     Singh     was  the 

brother  of  the  deceased  Dhanwant  Singh 
and  he  deposed  about  the  identification 
of  the  dead  body  of  his  brother  during 
the  inguest  proceedings  and  also  deposed 
that  his  brother  died  because  of  the  bomb 
blast  at  the  Civil  Secretariat. 

PW-146,  Sudarshan  Singh 


114 


identified  the  dead  body  of  HC  Ajaib 
Singh  and  deposed  accordingly. 

PW-147,    Kamal    Kishore,    who  was 

related  to  deceased  Lachman  Dass,  deposed 
that  he  identified  the  dead  body  of 
deceased  Lachman  Dass,  who  died  in  this 
bomb  blast. 

PW-148,  Kaku  Singh,  a  Gate 
Keeper  of  the  Secretariat,  identified  the 
dead  body  of  Tota  Ram,  who  died  in  the 
bomb  blast. 

PW-149,  Dr.Sachin  Bassi, 

identified  the  dead  body  of  Dr.  Anil 
Duggal,   who  died  in  the  bomb  blast. 

PW-150,  Sanjiv  Kumar  identified 
the  dead  body  of  Yash  Pal  Bali,  who  died 
in      the      bomb      blast,  and  deposed 

accordingly . 

PW-151,  Manjit  Singh  identified 
the  dead  body  of  Ran  jot  Singh,  who  was 
his  father,  who  died  in  the  bomb  blast 
and  deposed  accordingly. 

PW-152,  Bhupinder  Singh 

identified     the     dead     body     of  Jagdish 


115 


Singh,  who  was  his  younger  brother,  who 
died  in  Bomb  blast  and  deposed 
accordingly . 

PW-153,  Hardev  Singh  identified 
the  dead  body  of  Chamkaur  Singh,  who  was 
related  to  him  and  who  died  in  bomb  blast 
and     deposed  accordingly. 

PW-154,  Baldev  Singh  was  related 
to  deceased  Jagdish  Singh,  who  died  in 
Bomb  Blast  and  identified  his  dead  body 
and     deposed  accordingly. 

PW-155,  Amarjit  Singh  identified 
the  dead  body  of  his  brother  Swaran 
Singh,  who  died  in  bomb  blast  and 
deposed  accordingly. 

PW-156,  Sukhwinder  Singh 

identified  the  dead  body  of  his  father 
Mukhtiar  Singh,  who  died  in  bomb  blast 
and     deposed  accordingly. 

PW-157,  Surinder  Singh  deposed 
that  Dr. Anil  Duggal  and  Dr.Rajnish  Sood 
were  on  duty  with  the  Chief  Minister, 
Punjab  in  the  capacity  of  Medical 
Officers  and  on  31.8.1995,  Dr. Duggal  died 
because  of  bomb  blast. 


116 


PW-158,  Kamaljit  Singh 

identified  the  dead  body  of  MLA,  Baldev 
Singh,  who  was  known  to  him,  who  died  in 
Bomb  blast  and  deposed  accordingly. 

PW-159,   Gurbachan  Singh,   who  was 

posted  as  Constable  at  Chandigarh  deposed 
that  he  was  known  to  Lakhwinder  Singh. 

PW-160,       R.S.Verma,  Director, 
Central   Forensic   Science  Lab,  Chandigarh, 
who  is  a  expert  of  explosive  deposed  that 
on    8.9.1995,    he   was    called   by   the  C.B.I 
for     collecting     the     remanents     and  the 
explosive     substance     from     the     room  of 
accused   Gurmeet   Singh,    in      house   no. 981, 
Phase-IV    Mohali    and    accordingly    as  per 
the    identity   disclosed  by   Gurmeet  Singh, 
he  recovered  some  particles   from  the  room 
and    examined    and    found    the    same    to  be 
part  of  the  RDX.    Thereafter,    he  converted 
those       particles       in       a       sample  for 
examination   in   the   Laboratory   and  as  per 
his  report,    Ex.PW160/l,    he  found  that  all 
the     articles     recovered     from    the  room, 
Article-Ex . P-82    to    Article-Ex . P-90 ,  were 
having  the  traces  of  RDX. 

PW-161,    Dr.Vijay  Kumar,    who  was 


117 


also    attached    with  Chief    Minister    as  a 

Medical      Officer,  deposed      about  the 

identification  of  the  dead  body  of 
Dr . Duggal . 

PW-162,    C.Sukhwinder    Pal  Singh, 

who  was  on  duty  in  the  security  of  the 
Chief  Minister,  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995 
he  was  present  at  the  residence  of  Beant 
Singh  being  a  spare  driver  and  at  about 
5.10  p.m.,  he  received  a  wireless  message 
about  the  bomb  blast  and  reached 
Secretariat  and  found  that  Beant  Singh 
had  died  along  with  some  other  persons. 
He  also  deposed  that  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  who  was  working  as  Constable 
driver,  was  known  to  him  and  he  was  clean 
shaven  in  those  days  and  he  identified 
him  in  the  court.  He  also  identified  the 
photograph  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and 
deposed  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
once  introduced  Dilawar  Singh  with  him 
and  as  such  he  identifies  both  of  them. 

PW-163,  Raj  Mohan  deposed  that 
on  5.9.1995,  the  police  searched  the  room 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  his 
presence  and  all  the  articles  recovered 
from  there  were  taken  into  possession 
vide  memo,  Ex.PWl63/3. 


118 


PW-164,  P.C.Sharma,  then  CBI 
Inspector  deposed  that  as  directed  by  the 
10,  he  conducted  the  search  of  the  room 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  the 
presence  of  PW-163  and  taken  into 
possession  all  the  articles  as  per  memo, 
Ex. PW163/3 . 

PW-165,  Roop  Singh,  a  Ballistics 
Expert  of  CFSL,  Chandigarh  deposed  that 
on  the  asking  of  the  C.B.I,  he  examined 
the  scene  of  occurrence  of  the  blast  on 
1.9.1995  till  3.9.1995  and  took  into 
possession  number  of  articles  from  the 
spot  with  the  purpose  to  examine  them  for 
the  cause  of  the  blast  and  the  modus 
operandi  and  after  examining  those 
articles  in  the  different  Laboratories, 
he  found  that  this  bomb  blast  took  place 
with  the  help  of  improvised  explosive 
device  commonly  known  as  IED  which 
exploded  near  the  rear  left  side  of  the 
car  of  the  Chief  Minister,  bearing 
registration  No.  PB-08-3469,  at  height  of 
three  feet  from  the  ground  and  keeping  in 
view  the  recovery  of  two  legs  and  skull, 
he  confirmed  that  this  explosion  has  been 
caused  by  a  human  bomb  and  the  RDX  has 
been  used  for  the  explosion. 


119 


He  also  examined  the  RDX 
recovered  from  the  possession  of  accused 
Nasib  Singh  and  reported  that  after 
examination  from  the  Chemical  and 
Instrumental  analysis,  the  presence  of 
RDX  based  high  explosive  in  the  contents 
has  been  confirmed  and  the  RDX  based  high 
explosive  is  also  detected  in  all  the  27 
articles  recovered  from  the  spot. 

He  further  deposed  that  on 
11.10.1995,  he  examined  a  belt,  Ex.P97, 
and  found  that  2  kg  of  RDX  based  high 
explosive  can  be  filled  in  the  Ex.P97. 
Similarly  he  also  examined  a  battery, 
Ex.P153  in  Ballistic  Division  and  Physics 
Division  and  found  that  such  type  of 
battery  could  have  been  used  in  causing 
the  explosion  on  31.8.1995  and  he  also 
confirmed  the  presence  of  RDX  on  the  news 
paper  piece,  Ex.P88  which  was  recovered 
from  the  room  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
and  which  was  used  for  the  preparation  of 
the  RDX  filled  in  the  belt  used  by 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh. 

PW-166,     Tilak     Raj     Mehra,  a 

document  expert  of  the  CFSL,  New  Delhi 
compared  the  questioned  and  standard 
writing  attributed  to  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,      Gurmeet      Singh,      Balwant  Singh, 


120 


Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Navjot  Singh  and 
concluded  that  all  the  questioned  writing 
and  signatures  were  all  of  these  accused 
persons  on  all  the  questioned  documents 
and  he  deposed  about  his  conclusion  in 
all  the  cases  as  per  his  reports 
Ex.PW166/l  to  Ex.PW166/26  and  justified 
his  conclusion  in  this  regard. 

PW-167,         Dr.Rajinder  Singh, 

Senior  Scientific  Officer,  CFSL  was  a 
member  of  the  team  of  the  CFSL 
authorities,  who  examined  the  scene  of 
crime  from  1.9.1995  to  3.9.1995  and 
deposed  about  the  recovery  of  the 
incriminating  articles  from  the  spot. 

PW-168,  Kewal  Singh  is  a  formal 
witness,  who  took  into  possession  the 
medico  legal  reports  of  the  injured 
persons  and  then  handed  over  the  same  to 
the  C.B.I. 

PW-169,  Sat  Pal  Singh,  was  also 
associated  with  DSP  of  the  CBI  in  the 
investigations  and  he  accordingly  deposed 
about  the  part  played  by  him  in  the 
investigations . 

PW-170,     H.R.Chopra,     then  DSP, 


121 


CBI  also  deposed  as  to  the  part  of 
investigations  conducted  by  him  but  which 
are  of  formal  nature. 

PW-171,    SI    Om    Parkash    was  the 

person,  who  conducted  the  inquest 
proceedings  of  some  of  the  dead  bodies 
and  he  accordingly  proved  those 
proceedings . 

PW-172,      C.Amarjit      Singh  was 

associated  during  the  postmortem 
proceedings  of  deceased  Mukhtiar  Singh 
and  he  accordingly  deposed  about  those 
proceedings . 

PW-173,      SI     Baljit     Singh  was 

associated  in  the  postmortem  proceedings 
of  deceased  Swaran  Singh  and  deposed 
accordingly . 

PW-174,         SI         Tarlok  Singh 

conducted  the  inquest  and  postmortem 
proceedings  relating  to  the  dead  body  of 
Ran jot  Singh  and  proved  the  same 
accordingly . 

PW-175,       SI       Harbhajan  Singh 

prepared  the  inquest  proceedings  relating 
to  the  dead  bodies     of  Yash  Pal  Bali,  ASI 


122 


Jagjit  Singh,  Chamkaur  Singh,  Lachman 
Dass,  Rajinder  Parsad  and  also  deposed 
about  the  postmortem  of  these  dead 
bodies . 

PW-176,  SI  Gamdoor  Singh  took 
the  dead  bodies  of  deceased  Kultar  Singh 
to  the  Hospital  for  the  postmortem 
examination.  He  also  obtained  the 
permission  of  the  SDM  for  the  postmortem 
of  dead  body  of  deceased  Beant  Singh  and 
the  postmortem  of  two  legs  and  skull 
recovered  from  the  spot  and  deposed 
accordingly . 

PW-177,     SI     Sukhdev     Singh  was 

associated  during  the  inquest  proceedings 
of  deceased  Mukhtiar  Singh,  Rajinder 
Parsad,  Balbir  Singh  and  proved  those 
proceedings . 

PW-178,  S.K.Chadha,  Senior 
Scientific  Officer,  CFSL,  New  Delhi  was 
also  one  of  the  member  of  the  team,  who 
examined  the  scene  of  crime  and  being  a 
Finger  Print  Expert,  he  took  the  chance 
finger  prints  from  the  car  bearing 
registration  No.  DBA-9598,  as  per  the 
memo,  Ex.P178/l,  along  with  the 
photographs     and     after     examining  those 


123 


prints  in  the  laboratory  and  after 
comparing  the  same  with  the  specimen 
finger  prints  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and 
Balwant  Singh,  as  per  his  report,  Ex.PW- 
178/5  and  Ex . PW-178/14 ,  found  that  two 
chance  finger  prints  lifted  from  the  car 
marked  Q-4  and  Q-15  matches  with  the 
specimen  finger  prints  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh 
respectively  and  deposed  accordingly. 

PW-179,  SI  Ved  Parkash  conducted 
the  inguest  proceedings  relating  to  dead 
bodies  of     deceased     Lachman  Singh, 

Rajinder  Parsad,  Chamkaur  Singh,  Tota 
Ram,  Hardial  Singh,  Ajaib  Singh,  Jagdish, 
Beant  Singh,  Kultar  Singh  and  Balbir 
Singh  and  he  accordingly  deposed  about 
these  proceedings.  He  also  deposed  about 
the  various  incriminating  articles 
recovered  from  the  spot. 

PW-180,     Jasbir    Singh,     who  was 

running  a  taxi,  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995 
accused  Balwant  Singh  took  his  Jeep  Taxi 
from  Bus  Stand  Sangrur  for  going  to  a 
Village  near  Rampura  Phool  and  he 
accordingly  took  him  and  he  got  down  from 
the    jeep    near    Gurudwara    of    the  Village. 


124 


He  also  deposed  that  he  has  identified 
the  photo  graph  of  Balwant  Singh  before 
the  CBI,  Ex.DRRRR,  and  also  identified 
him  in  the  court. 

PW-181  Goldi  Gupta  deposed  that 
in  the  year  1996,  the  visitors  guest 
register  of  the  guest  house  was  taken 
into  possession  by  the  CBI  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW131/4  and  he  also  identified  the 
register,   as  Ex.PW123/7. 

PW-182,   Constable  Surinder  Kumar 

deposed  that  he  took  the  dead  body  of 
Dhanwant  Singh  for  postmortem  and  after 
doing  the  needful,  he  handed  over  the 
documents  to  SI  Om  Parkash  deposed  that 

PW-183,  HC  Anil  Kumar  deposed 
that  he  accompanied  PW  Nanha  Ram  to  PGI, 
where  after  recording  the  statement  of 
Pala  Ram  Ex.PW30/3,  he  took  the  same  to 
the  police  Station,  where  formal  FIR, 
Ex.PW30/4,   was  registered. 

PW-183-A,  HC  Anil  Kumar  proved 
the  entries  of  DDR  No. 30,  34,  39  dated 
9.9.1995  and  proved  the  copies  there  of. 

PW-184,    Amarjit    Kaur,    owner  of 


125 


house  no. 243  Phase-7  Mohali,  deposed  that 
she  gave  his  one  room  on  rent  to  one 
Jagroop  Singh,  who  was  residing  there 
with  his  brother  Gurdip,  but  she  failed 
to  depose  that  accused  Navjot  Singh  used 
to  visit  Jagroop  Singh  and  thus  she  was 
declared  hostile. 

PW-185,     Mewa     Singh,      who  was 

running  a  tea  shop  near  the  MT  Section  of 
Civil  Secretariat,  deposed  that  he  was 
knowing  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  @  Lakha 
being  a  driver  of  MT  Section.  He  further 
deposed  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was 
residing  in  rented  accommodation  in 
village  Kansal  near  Shiv  Temple  and  he 
was  having  scooter  bearing  No.  PCP-2085. 
He  further  deposed  that  he  met  Dalbir  @ 
Maulla  and  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  with 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  on  30.8.1995, 
Lakhwinder  Singh  along  with  Dilawar  Singh 
and  two  other  persons  visited  his  shop 
and  he  accordingly  identified  photographs 
of  Dilawar  Singh,  Ex.PSSSS  and  signed  the 
same.  He  also  identified  the  photograph 
of  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Ex.PWlll/3.  However, 
this  witness  could  not  identify  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  saying  that  he  was  clean 
shaven  at  that  time.  He  also  deposed  that 
even     on     31.8.1995,      accused  Lakhwinder 


126 


Singh,  visited  his  shop  along  with  some 
person  whose  photograph  is  Ex.PW185/A. 

PW-186,    Paramjit    Singh,    who  is 

residing  in  Ghaziabad  in  Mohalla  Ramgarh 
has  failed  to  depose  in  favour  of  the 
prosecution  and  was  declared  hostile. 

PW-187,     Ramesh    Chand,     who  was 

working  as  Assistant  Manager  in  Hotel 
Laxmi  Palace  Jaipur,  deposed  that  as  per 
the  Guest  register,  Ex.PW187/l,  at  serial 
no. 91  dated  7.11.1995,  one  Jaskaran  Singh 
son  of  Ram  Singh  and  Rajiv  Kumar 
resident  of  Panipat  checked  in  the  Hotel 
on  7.11.1995  and  left  at  8.00  a.m  on 
8.11.1995  and  proved  the  entries  made  by 
Rajiv  Kumar  as  Ex.PW87/l-A,  which  was 
taken  into  possession  by  the  police  as 
per  memo,  Ex.PW187/2  and  he  handed  over 
this  record  to  the  Police. 

PW-188,  Babu  Lai,  proprietor  of 
Ganpati  Guest  House,  Jaipur  deposed  that 
as  per  the  guest  register,  Ex.PW188/l, 
vide  entry  dated  14.9.1995,  one  Ajmer 
Singh  son  of  Santokh  Singh  arrived  in  the 
guest  house  at  7.40  a.m,  accompanied  by 
two  male  persons,  one  female  and  one 
child  and  they   stayed  in   room  no .  6   up  to 


127 


16.9.1995  and  he  handed  over  the  entries 
to  the  CBI  accordingly. 

PW-189,     HC    Paramjit    Singh  has 

registered  the  formal  FIR  and  proved  the 
same . 

PW-190,        ASI        Ranjit  Singh, 

deposed  that  Car  No.  DBA-9598,  article  P- 
76  was  lying  in  Police  Station,  North  and 
on  1.9.1995,  it  was  examined  by  Expert 
S.K.Chadha  and  Gautam  Rai  and  they  took 
the  photograph  and  finger  prints  in  his 
presence  as  per  the  memo,  Ex.PW178/l, 
which  bears  his  signatures. 

PW-191,         SI     Neeraj     Sarna  of 

Crime  Branch,  Chandigarh  deposed  that  he 
was  present  on  3.9.1995  at  the  scene  of 
crime  and  the  same  was  inspected  by  the 
CBI  team  along  with  expert  team  of  the 
CFSL  and  some  incriminating  articles 
were  lifted  from  the  spot  as  per  the 
memo,  Ex.PW191/A,  after  converting  the 
same  into  sealed  parcels  in  the  presence 
of  Inspector  P.K.Dhawan  and  DSP  A.K.Ohri 
and  he  also  identified  those  articles  as 
article  Ex.P-186  to  Ex.P-189  in  the 
Court . 


128 


PW-192,     Jagdish     Singh     is  the 

brother  of  accused  Paramjit  Singh,  who  is 
facing  trial  in  a  separate  trial,  but  he 
has  failed  to  support  the  story  of  the 
prosecution  for  which  he  was  cited  as  a 
witness . 

PW-193,  Harmohinder  Kaur,  sister 
of  accused  Paramjit  Singh  mentioned  above 
also  failed  to  support  the  story  of  the 
prosecution  for  which  she  was  cited  as  a 
prosecution  witness. 

PW-194,  Babu  Singh  was  the  Head 
Gate  Keeper  of  Punjab  Civil  Secretariat 
and  he  accordingly  deposed  about  the  bomb 
blast  on  31.8.1995  and  the  death  of 
Dhanwant  Singh,  another  watchman  in  the 
blast . 

PW-195,      R.D.Kalia,       DSP,  CBI 

investigated  the  case  at  Jaipur  and  he 
had  taken  into  possession  the  guest 
register  of  Ganpati  Guest  House  from  its 
proprietor  Babu  Lai  Sharma  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW188/2.  On  23.1.1996,  he  also  took 
into  possession  the  register,  Ex.PW187/l 
of  Hotel  Laxmi  Palance,  Jaipur  through 
memo,  Ex.PW187/2  from  Ramesh  Chand  and 
deposed  accordingly. 


129 


PW-196,      Atma      Ram,       who  was 

working  as  lift-man  in  the  Civil 
Secretariat,  also  deposed  about  the  bomb 
blast  as  heard  by  him. 

PW-197,  Ranjit  Singh,  Constable 
deposed  that  while  posted  at  Chandigarh, 
he  was  knowing  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
and  his  friend  Dilawar  Singh  resident  of 
Patiala.  He  further  deposed  that  on  his 
identification,  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
opened  his  account  with  Punjab  National 
Bank  Chandigarh.  He  identified  the 
signatures  of  Lakhwinder  Singh  on  account 
opening  form,  Ex.PW59/J,  as  well  as  his 
own  signatures  and  the  photograph  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  ExPW197/l,  and  further 
deposed  that,  at  that  time,  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  was  clean  shaven.  He 
also  identified  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
in  the  court  and  his  photographs  mark, 
YY/5  and  mark  D-SSSS. 

PW-198,  Sunil  Kumar  Sharma  also 
remained  associated  in  the  investigation 
and  deposed  that  on  18.9.1995,  he 
recorded  the  statement  of  Harpreet  Kaur 
and  took  into  possession  document, 
Ex.D150    from    PW    Dilbagh    Singh    and  also 


130 


obtained  his  signatures  on  the  back  of 
the  poster,  Ex.PW150/l.  He  also  deposed 
that  on  14.1.1996,  he  took  into 
possession  the  PCO  register  of  STD  booth 
Farukhabad,  Ex.PW198/l  through  memo, 
EX.PW198/2  in  the  presence  of  Vinod  Kumar 
Khurana  and  on  the  same  day,  he  took  into 
possession  another  PCO  register  of  Anu 
PCO,  Farukhabad,  Ex.PW136/l  vide  memo, 
Ex.PW136/2  from  Sanjay  Kumar  and  he  also 
recorded  the  statement  of  Dashrath  Parsad 
Tiwari,  who  identified  the  photograph  of 
Balwant  Singh.  He  also  deposed  that  on 
15.1.96,  he  took  into  possession  the 
guest  register  of  Hotel  Anand,  Ex.PW94/44 
vide  memo,  Ex.PW137/l  from  Radhey  Sham 
and  thereafter  he  took  into  possession 
the  STD  register,  Ex.PW134/2  of  Murli  STD 
vide  memo,  Ex.PW134/l  in  the  presence  of 
Murli  Dhar,  owner  who  also  identified  the 
photograph  of  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Ex.PW134/3  and  signed  the  same. 

PW-199,    Darshan    Singh,    who  was 

working  as  driver  with  the  S.P.  Security 
at  the  relevant  time,  deposed  that  he  was 
knowing  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  who  was 
also  working  in  Police  deptt  and  residing 
in  Village  Kansal  and  he  was  clean 
shaven  at  that  time.   He  also  deposed  that 


131 


Lakhwinder  Singh  purchased  a  scooter  and 
some  person  used  to  visit  him  and  he 
identify  the  photographs  of  Dilawar 
Singh,  Ex.PSSSS  and  also  identified 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  the  court. 

PW-200,  HC  Hakam  Singh  deposed 
that  on  31.8.1995,  he  was  on  duty  at 
Civil  Secretariat  at  VIP  gate  along  with 
other  officials,  and  he  proved  their 
duties  as  such. 

PW-201,  S.V.  Singh  deposed  that 
on  22.1.1996,  on  the  asking  of  CBI,  he 
was  associated  in  the  investigation  and 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  suffered 
disclosure  statements,  Ex.PW201/l  and 
Ex.PW201/2,  and  accused  Balwant  Singh 
also  suffered  a  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW201/3  in  his  presence  and  in  the 
presence  of  one  Than  Singh  and  thereafter 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  took  the 
police  party  to  Daryaganj  and  identified 
Surya  Guest  house  vide  memo,  Ex.PW201/4 
in  his  presence.  He  also  deposed  that 
thereafter  accused  Balwant  Singh  also 
identified  the  same  place  vide  memo, 
Ex.PW201/5  and  then  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  took  the  police  party  to  PCO 
located      at      Bhagat      Singh      market  and 


132 


identified  the  same  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW201/6  and  all  these  documents  were 
signed  by  the  accused  persons  and  the 
witnesses  in  his  presence.  He  also 
identified  both  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  in  the  court. 


PW-202,  Dhana  Ram  was  on  duty  at 
the  Secretariat  on  the  date  of  blast,  and 
deposed  about  the  deployment  of  the 
security  personnel  at  the  VIP  gate. 

PW-203,    Gurdial    Singh,    who  was 

the  line  officer,  Security  in  the  Civil 
Secretariat  also  deposed  about  the 
deployment  of  security  staff. 

PW-204,  Parkash  GobindJi 

Trivedi,  who  was  a  partner  of  Hotel  Anand 
Mehal,  Nagpur,  deposed  that  as  per  the 
guest  register,  Ex.PW95/3,  as  per 
entires,  Ex.PW95/l,  one  Sandeep  Kumar 
Sharma  stayed  in  his  Hotel  along  with 
Tejinder  Singh  and  this  record  was  taken 
into  possession  by  the  C.B.I  on  5.1.1996 
vide  memo,  Ex.PW204/A  in  his  presence 
along  with  the  bill  book,  Ex.PW204/2 
containing  carbon  copy  of  bill 
dt. 5. 9. 1995. 


133 


PW-205,      Suresh     Goel  Trivedi, 

another  partner  of  Anand  Mehal  Hotel  also 
deposed  about  the  stay  of  Sandeep  Sharma 
from  5.9.1995  to  6.9.1995  as  deposed  by 
PW-204 . 

PW-206,  Dineshwar  Trimbakrao 
Deshmukh  deposed  that  as  per  the 
withdrawal  form,  Ex.PW206/2  and 

Ex.PW206/3,  on  5.9.1995  a  sum  of 
Rs.25,000/-  was  withdrawn  by  Gurinder 
Singh,  Account  holder  from  his  account 
and  he  handed  over  the  record  to  the  CBI. 

PW-207,  Harcharan  Singh,  a  co- 
villager  of  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  (Since 
proclaimed  offender)  deposed  that  accused 
Wadhawa  Singh  was  also  the  member  of  the 
society  of  the  Village  and  he  accordingly 
identify  his  signatures  on  the  fax 
massage,  mark  AAA,  as  Ex.PW207/l  and 
similarly  he  also  identified  his 
signatures  on  the  fax  messages,  mark 
AAA/1,  mark  DDD,  mark-DDD/1,  mark  EEE, 
mark  EEE/ 1 ,   mark  FFF  ,   mark  FFF/1. 

PW-208,  Harpreet  Singh  alleged 
that  he  knows  one  Jodh  Singh,  who  was 
also  under  trial  with  him  in  Tihar  Jail 
Delhi   but   he    failed   to   depose    that  said 


134 


Jodh  Singh  introduced  him  to  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  thereafter  he  was  declared 
hostile  to  the  prosecution. 

PW-209,    Tara  Singh,    who  was  the 

Sarpanch  of  Village  Dasuwal  and  a  co- 
villager  of  accused  Mehal  Singh  (Since 
proclaimed  offender)  identified  the 
signatures  of  Mehal  Singh  on  the  fax 
messages,  mark  AAA,  mark  AAA/1,  mark  DDD 
and  mark  DDD/ 1 . 

PW-210,  Ajay  Gupta,  owner  of  the 
Parbhat  Hotel,  Agra  deposed  that  as  per 
the  guest  register,  Ex.PW95/35,  on 
6.11.1995,  one  Rajiv  Kumar  resident  of 
Panipat  stayed  in  his  Hotel  and  made 
entry,  Ex.PW95/36  with  his  signatures, 
Ex.PW95/37  and  stayed  till  the  morning  of 
7.11.1995  and  thereafter  on  8.11.1995,  he 
again  checked  in  along  with  another 
person  vide  entry,  Ex.PW95/38  with 
signatures,  Ex.PW95/39  and  stayed  upto 
9.11.1995.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
9.11.1995,  one  Gurpreet  Singh  also  took  a 
room  and  stayed  in  the  Hotel  along  with 
one  Gentleman  as  per  the  entry, 
Ex.PW95/40  with  signatures,  Ex.PW95/41 
and  they  left  the  Hotel  at  about  1.30 
p.m.     He     also     deposed    that    vide  entry 


135 


dated        15.11.1995,         Ex.PW95/42  with 
signatures     of    Rajiv    Kumar,  Ex.PW95/43, 
same   Rajiv  Kumar   along  with   one  Jaskaran 
Singh     again     stayed     in     his     Hotel  from 
16.11.1995    and    all    the    record   was  taken 
into    possession    by    the    CBI    vide  memo, 
Ex.PW210/l.       He      also      identified  the 
photograph    of    Rajiv    Kumar    as    mark  TTTTT 
and       his       signatures       on       the  same, 
Ex. PW210/2 . 

PW-211,      Narinder      Singh  Rana 

handed  over  the  registration  record  of 
the  vehicles  no.DBA-9598  and  no.  DL-3C-E 
2104  to  the  CBI  as  per  the  memo 
Ex.PW211/l  and  deposed  that  Ambassador 
Car  no.  DBA-9598  was  owned  by  Mrs.  Reva 
Dutta  w/o  S.K.Dutta  of  Pachim  Bihar,  New 
Delhi . 

PW-212,  Balwant  Singh  deposed 
that  on  20.1.1996,  accused  Balwant  Singh 
suffered  disclosure  statements,  Ex.PW- 
247/3  and  Ex.PW-247/4  and  he  &  Goldu 
signed  the  same  and  thereafter  accused 
Balwant  Singh  took  the  police  party  to 
the  Mall  Road  at  Patiala  and  disclosed 
the  place  from  where  he  hired  a  taxi  for 
Mohali  and  pointing  out  memo,  Ex.PW-212/1 
was     prepared     with     the      signatures  of 


136 


accused  Balwant  Singh.  Thereafter  accused 
Balwant  Singh  led  the  police  party  in 
Tripuri  Market,  Patiala  and  identified 
the  shop  of  tailor  from  where  he  got  the 
clothes  stitched  and  pointing  out  memo, 
Ex.PW76/2  was  prepared  in  the  presence  of 
Amarjit  Singh,  Tailor  Master  and  the 
measurement  book  of  tailor  was  also  taken 
into  possession.  Thereafter  accused 
Balwant  Singh  took  the  police  party  to 
the  Kabari  Bazar  and  identified  the  shop 
of  kabari,  from  where  the  iron  balls  were 
procured  and  pointing  out  memo,  Ex.PW- 
212/2  was  prepared  in  his  presence.  He 
also  deposed  that  then  accused  Balwant 
Singh  took  the  police  party  to  the 
Dharampura  Bazar,  Patiala  and  pointed  out 
the  shop  from  where  he  procured  Battery 
and  electric  switch  and  pointing  out 
memo,  Ex.PW-212/3  was  prepared.  After 
this  accused  took  the  police  party  to 
A.C.  Market,  Patiala,  from  where  he  got 
the  belt  stitched  and  pointing  out  memo, 
Ex.PW75/B  was  prepared. 

PW-213,     Karamjit    Singh,     a  co- 
resident      of      accused      Gurmeet  Singh, 
Lakhwinder      Singh,       Dilawar      Singh  and 
Balwant       Singh       identified      all  these 
accused   persons    and    deposed    about  their 


137 


antecedents  and  deposed  that  for  the  last 
time,  he  met  Dilawar  Singh  on  15.8.1995, 
when  he  took  liquor  with  him  and  under 
the  influence  of  liquor  Dilawar  Singh 
disclosed  that  he  is  going  to  do  a  big 
incident  and  he  identified  the 
photographs  of  accused  Dilawar  Singh  and 
also  identified  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Balwant  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh. 

PW-214,  Santokh  Singh,  resident 
of  Guru  Nanak  Nagar,  Patiala  identified 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh 
being  residents  of  his  locality. 

PW-215,  Avinder  Vir  Singh  proved 
the      copies      of     the     FIR     No.  12  dated 
2.2.1991    and    FIR    No. 39    dated  26.3.1991, 
Ex.PW215/l  and  Ex.PW215/2. 

PW-216,  Charanjiv  Singh  deposed 
that  on  20.9.1995,  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  suffered  a  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW216/l  in  his  presence  and  in  the 
presence  of  Mr. Anil  Anand  and  he  signed 
the  same  in  his  presence  and  thereafter 
he  took  the  police  party  to  the  Sahirdaye 
Apartments,  Pachim  Vihar,  New  Delhi  and 
identified  the  house  of  S.K.Dutta,  who 
came  out  of  the  house  and  a  pointing  out 


138 


memo,  Ex.PW32/8  was  prepared  in  his 
presence  and  S.K.Dutta  was  joined  in  the 
investigation.  He  also  identified  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  the  court. 


PW-217,    Harjit  Singh  @   Raja,  an 

electrician  by  profession,  deposed  that 
he  knows  Jarnail  Singh  @  Joga,  who  was 
running  his  business  of  Electric  Works 
and  he  used  to  work  with  them  and  accused 
Paramjit  is  the  brother  of  Jarnail  Singh. 
He  further  deposed  that  in  the  month  of 
September,  1995,  he  met  accused  Paramjit 
in  their  factory  and  Paramjit  expressed 
an  apprehension,  he  may  be  arrested  by 
the  Punjab  Police  on  account  of  death  of 
Sardar  Beant  Singh.  He  further  deposed 
that  on  22.9.1995,  the  CBI  took  into 
possession  Scooter,  Ex.P70  in  his 
presence  along  with  its  documents  vide 
memo,  Ex.PW33/l. 


PW-218,       Harkesh       Singh,  NSG 

Commando,  who  was  working  as  Ranger-I  in 
the  Escort  of  the  deceased  Chief 
Minister,  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995,  on 
receiving  the  message  that  the  CM  is 
going  out,  he  took  up  his  position  and  at 
about  5.05  p.m,  Shri  Beant  Singh  CM 
Punjab,    came    into    the    porch    and    he  was 


139 


facing  towards  the  CM  and  when  the  CM  was 
talking  to  Dr.Duggal  and  was  going  to  sit 
in  the  Car,  he  saw  one  person  in  police 
uniform  coming  towards  the  CM  and 
thereafter  a  blast  took  place  resulting 
into  the  death  of  CM  &  other  persons.  He 
deposed  that  the  person,  who  came  towards 
the  CM  was  a  young  person  and  was  not 
wearing  turban  or  a  cap. 

PW-219,  HC  Nahar  Singh  handed 
over  the  service  file  of  Dilawar  Singh  to 
the  Police,  Ex.PW161/A  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW219/l  and  also  identified  the 
photograph  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  his 
date  of  birth  and  his  matriculation 
certificate  and  signature  of  Dilawar 
Singh  on  the  service  book. 

PW-220,  Anwar  Khan,  a 

Receptionist  of  City  Lodge,  Calcutta 
deposed  that  as  per  the  guest  register, 
Ex.PW220/l,  as  per  the  entry  at  page  80, 
one  Santokh  Singh  son  of  Arjun  Singh 
along  with  five  other  persons  stayed  in 
their  Guest  House,  vide  entry  Ex.PW- 
220/2 . 

PW-221,     Mumtaz     Khan,     who  was 

working     as     Manager        of     the     New  City 


140 


Lodge,  Calcutta  at  the  relevant  time 
corroborated  the  testimony  of  PW-220  and 
reiterated  the  facts  stated  by  PW-220. 

PW-222,  Himmat    Singh    @  Bhai 

Mistri,  a  neighbour  of  Jagjit  Singh 
deposed  that  he  knows  Jagjit  Singh,  who 
stayed  in  H.No.  B-50  Vishavkarma  Park, 
Laxmi  Nagar,  Delhi  being  a  neighbourer 
for  the  last  15-18  years  but  he  stated 
that  he  does  not  know  Paramjit  Singh  and 
thereafter  he  was  declared  hostile. 

PW-223,  Thakur  Dass,  Manager  in 
Kohinoor  Hotel,  Agra  deposed  that  as  per 
the  guest  register,  Ex.PW223/3,  as  per 
entry,  Ex.PW223/l,  vide  entry  no. 3837 
dated  19.12.1995,  two  persons  Gaurav 
Chawla  and  Surinder  Bansal  stayed  in 
their  Hotel  from  19.12.1995  to  22.12.1995 
and  as  per  the  bill,  copy  of  which  is 
Ex.PW223/2,  they  charged  room  rent.  He 
further  deposed  that  he  handed  over  the 
record  to  the  CBI  and  also  identified  the 
photographs  of  the  person,  who  stayed  in 
the  Hotel,  vide  photographs,  Ex.PW-223/4 
and  Ex. PW-223/4-A. 

PW-224,  Narain  Rakshi,  Manager 
of     the     Hotel     Prabhat     Chikitola,  Agra, 


141 


deposed  that  he  identified  the  photograph 
Ex.PW-224/1  and  Mark  WWWWW  of  a  person, 
who  came  to  their  Hotel  to  meet  two 
persons,   who  also  stayed  in  the  Hotel. 

PW-225,  Pardeep  Chand  deposed 
that  on  16.1.1996,  the  hand  writing  and 
signatures  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  in 
English,  Hindi  and  Punjabi  were  taken  in 
his  presence  on  the  sheets,  Ex.PW225/l  to 
Ex.PW225/23  and  those  were  attested  by 
him . 

PW-226,      Badruzzaman,      who  is 

Manager  of  Hotel  Classic,  Calcutta, 
deposed  that  as  per  the  Hotel  register, 
Ex.PW226/l  vide  entry  no. 2571  dated 
20.09.1995,  Gurmeet  Singh,  Jaswant  Singh, 
Gurjit  Singh,  Kirpal,  Dinesh  and  one  Kaur 
stayed  in  their  Hotel  in  two  rooms  upto 
30.9.1995  and  the  entries  were  made  by 
the  customer,  which  are  Ex.PW226/3  and 
Ex.PW226/3-A  and  he  handed  over  this 
record  to  the  C.B.I  vide  memo,  Ex.P226/2. 
He  further  deposed  that  on  the  asking  of 
the  CBI,  he  identified  the  photographs  of 
the  persons,  who  stayed  in  the  Hotel  as 
Ex.PW95/22,  Mark  VVVVV  and  Mark  VVVVV/1 
and  put  his  signatures  on  the  same  but  he 
failed    to    identify    those    persons    in  the 


142 


court . 

The  number  PW-227  has  been  skipped 
inadverten tly . 

PW-228,      Inspector  P.K.Dhawan, 

who  remained  associated  in  the 
investigation  of  this  case  with  the  CBI, 
deposed  that  on  2.9.1995  the 
investigating  team  visited  the  place  of 
occurrence  along  with  the  CFSL  team  and 
took  into  possession  all  the 
incriminating  articles  vide  seizure  memo, 
Ex.PW228/l,  as  per  the  detailed  mentioned 
therein.  He  further  deposed  that 
similarly  on  3.9.1995,  the  Investigating 
Team  again  collected  incriminating 
articles,  as  per  memos,  Ex.PW191/A  and 
Ex.PW191/B,  as  per  the  details  mentioned 
therein,  in  his  presence  and  he  has  also 
identified  all  those  articles  in  the 
court . 

PW-229,  Ravi  Gambhir,  Inspector, 
CBI,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the 
Investigating  team,  deposed  that  on 
16.1.1996  he  went  to  Calcutta  and  took 
into  possession  the  records  of  Hotel 
Classic,  Hotel  New  City  Lodge  and 
recorded  the  statements  of  concerned 
witnesses    and    got    the    identity    of  the 


143 


accused  Balwant  Singh  from  the  Hotel 
staff  and  handed  over  the  record  to  the 
Chief  Investigating  Officer. 

PW-230,  Girish  Joshi ,  owner  of 
Hotel  Kiran,  Agra,  deposed  that  as  per 
the  Hotel  register,  two  persons  Gurdev 
Bansal  &  Surinder  Bansal  stayed  in  their 
Hotel  from  22.12.1995  and  23.12.1995  as 
per  the  entry,  Ex.PW-230/1  and  the 
certificate,  Ex.PW-230/2  and  he  issued 
the  bill,  copy  of  which  is  Ex.PW-230/A  in 
this  regard. 

PW-231,  Rajesh  Kumar,  Inspector, 
CBI,  who  was  also  member  of  investigating 
team  deposed  that  on  11.12.1995,  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  was  arrested  at  Patiala  in 
his  presence.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
3.1.1996,  he  went  to  Nagpur  and  took  into 
possession  record  of  the  Hotel  President, 
Nagpur  as  per  memo,  Ex.PW3  9/l  and 
recorded  the  statement  of  the  Hotel 
staff.  Thereafter  he  went  to  Rajesh 
Telecom  Centre,  Nagpur  and  took  into 
possession  the  computerised  statement  of 
calls  and  the  call  register,  vide  memo, 
Ex.PW231/l  and  recorded  the  statement  of 
the  witnesses.  He  further  deposed  that 
Watchman  Radhey  identified  the 


144 


photographs  of  Balwant  Singh  and  signed 
the  same  and  thereafter  on  5.1.1996,  he 
took  into  possession  the  records  of  Hotel 
Anand  Mehal  and  also  took  into  possession 
the  record  of  the  Anand  Telephone  Centre, 
Nagpur  and  recorded  the  statement  of  all 
these  witnesses. 

PW-232,    Gurdeep    Singh,     SHO  P.S 

Sadar,  Kapurthala  proved  the  History 
sheet  record  of  Wadhawa  Singh  and  the 
details  of  the  cases  in  which  he  was 
involved . 

PW-233,  Jodh  Singh,  resident  of 
Uttam  Nagar,  New  Delhi  deposed  that  he 
knows  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Paramjit 
Singh,  being  the  members  of  Akhand 
Kirtani  Jatha  and  was  declared  hostile  by 
the  prosecution. 

PW-234,  S.L.Mukhi,  Senior 

Scientific  Officer,  compared  the  disputed 
documents  along  with  specimen  writings 
and  the  signatures  of  the  accused  persons 
and  proved  his  report  in  this  regard. 

PW-235,     San jay     Garg,     who  was 

posted  as  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Tis 
Hazari    Court    at    Delhi,     deposed    that  on 


145 


the  request  of  the  CBI,  he  recorded  the 
statement  of  witnesses  Chamkaur  Singh  u/s 
164  Cr.P.C,  Ex.PW99/7  as  per  the 
procedure  required  under  the  law  and  sent 
the  same  to  the  concerned  court. 

PW-236,  CM  Patel,  a  Serological 
expert  examined  the  incriminating 
articles  sent  to  the  CFSL  and  gave  his 
report,   Ex.P236/2  in  this  regard. 

PW-237,     A.K.Ohri,     SP,     CBI  who 

was  member  of  the  Investigating  team 
deposed  that  on  1.9.1995,  he  started 
investigations  of  this  case  by  recording 
the  statement  of  the  injured  persons  and 
on  3.9.1995,  he  took  into  possession  the 
incriminating  material  in  the  presence  of 
CFSL  team  as  per  the  seizure  memo, 
Ex.PW191/A  and  Ex.PW191/B  and  as  per  the 
details  mentioned  therein  and  handed  over 
the  same  to  the  Chief  Investigating 
Officer.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
5.9.1995  he  conducted  the  search  of  the 
house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  at  Patiala 
and  recovered  the  Album  containing 
photographs  of  Gurmeet  Singh  and  Dilawar 
Singh  as  per  memo,  Ex.PW237/l  and 
identified  those  photographs.  He  further 
deposed  that  after  that,   he  conducted  the 


146 


search  of  house  of  accused  Dilawar  Singh 
in  the  same  locality  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW85/l  and  all  the  articles  mentioned 
in  the  report,  were  taken  into 
possession.  Thereafter  on  12.9.1995  he 
went  to  the  Village  of  Foster  father  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  namely,  Jaswant 
Singh  and  conducted  the  search  of  his 
house  in  his  presence  as  per  memo, 
Ex.PW88/l  and  took  into  possession  all 
the  articles  and  mentioned  therein  and 
recorded  the  statement  of  the  witnesses 
and  handed  over  the  same  to  the  Chief 
Investigating  Officer. 

PW-238,     Inspector    Vijay  Kumar, 

who  was  also  member  of  the  Investigating 
Team  of  the  Chandigarh  Police  deposed 
that  on  4.9.1995,  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma 
made  a  statement  relating  to  this  case 
and  thereafter  another  witness  Balwinder 
Singh  was  called  and  his  statement  was 
recorded  and  both  these  witnesses 
identified  car  No.  DBA-9598,  Ex.P76  and 
disclosed  that  it  is  the  same  car  which 
was  painted  by  Surinder  Sharma  at  the 
instance  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh.  He 
further  deposed  that  on  5.9.1995,  he  went 
to  Village  Kansal  to  locate  Lakhwinder 
Singh   and  accordingly   on   the   identity  of 


147 


PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma  and  Balwinder 
Singh,  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was 
arrested  along  with  scooter  No.  PCP-2085 
and  search  memo  was  prepared  and  taken 
into  possession  as  per  the  seizure  memo, 
Ex.PW51/2  and  the  Scooter  was  also  taken 
into  possession  vide  separate  seizure 
memo,  Ex.PW51/l  in  the  presence  of  both 
the  witnesses.  After  that,  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  took  the  police  party  to 
the  parking  area  in  Sector  22-C, 
Chandigarh,  where  accused  Balwant  Singh 
was  found  standing  and  was  accordingly 
arrested  and  all  the  incriminating 
articles  were  taken  into  possession  vide 
seizure  memo,  Ex.PW51/4  in  the  presence 
of  both  the  witnesses  Surinder  Sharma  and 
Balwinder  Singh  and  thereafter  the 
custody  of  the  accused  persons  was  handed 
over  to  the  CBI  team.  He  further  deposed 
that  on  5.9.1995,  the  room  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  was  searched  in  the 
presence  of  PW  C.Gurbachan  Singh  by 
P. C. Sharma,  CBI  Inspector  and  14 
incriminating  articles  lying  therein  were 
taken  into  possession  as  per  memo, 
ExPW163/3 . 

PW-239,   A.G.L.Kaul,   who  was  also 
member   of   the    investigating   team  deposed 


148 


about  the  investigations  carried  out  by 
him.  As  per  this  witness,  on  18.01.1996, 
he  visited  Agra  and  took  into  possession 
the  record  of  the  Hotel  Deepika,  Hotel 
Prabhat  and  recorded  the  statements  of 
the  Hotel  Staff  and  the  Hotel  Staff 
identified  the  photographs  of  some  of  the 
accused  persons,  who  stayed  in  their 
Hotel  including  Balwant  Singh.  He  further 
deposed  that  after  the  arrest  of  Balwant 
Singh,  his  specimen  handwriting  and 
signatures  were  taken  in  his  presence  on 
the  sheets,  Ex.PW225/l  to  Ex.PW225/23  and 
on  22.1.1996,  further  specimen  hand 
writing  of  the  accused  was  obtained  on 
sheets,  Ex.PW106/l  to  Ex.PW106/19.  He 
further  deposed  about  the  details  of  the 
investigations  carried  out  thereafter 
including  the  recovery  of  the 
identification  of  various  places  made  by 
accused  Balwant  Singh  from  where  he  got 
the  uniform  and  belt  stitched,  from  where 
he  purchased  the  9  volt  battery  and 
switch  and  from  where  he  purchased  the 
balls  which  were  used  as  a  missiles  in 
the  belt  bomb. 

He  further  deposed  that  on 
28.01.1996,  he  went  to  Surya  Guest  House, 
Daryaganj     and    took    into    possession  the 


149 


records  from  the  Hotel  staff  and  recorded 
their  statements.  On  30.1.1996, 

similarly,  he  took  into  possession  the 
records  from  a  Hotel  of  Ambala  City  and 
recorded  the  statement  of  Hotel  Staff  and 
deposed  about  the  investigations  carried 
out  by  him  in  details. 

PW-240,     Inspector  Nanha  Ram  was 

the  first  Investigating  Officer  of  the 
Chandigarh  Police,  who  conducted  the 
investigations  till  the  time  it  was  taken 
over  by  the  CBI . 

Accordingly,  he  deposed  that  on 
31.8.1995,  after  receiving  information  of 
bomb  blast,  he  immediately  reached  at  the 
spot  and  inspected  the  place  of 
occurrence  and  immediately  took  all  the 
remedial  steps  along  with  other  police 
persons  for  sending  the  injured  and  dead 
bodies  to  the  Hospitals  and  cordoned  off 
the  area  of  the  bomb  blast  and  conducted 
a  detailed  inspection.  As  per  this 
witness,  during  the  inspection,  he  found 
an  Ambassador  Car  in  the  parking  area 
towards  Haryana  Secretariat  having 
registration  No.  DBA-95 98 , Ex . P7 6  and  he 
found  that  the  car  was  painted  afresh  as 
paint    was    not    fully    dried.  Accordingly, 


150 


he  suspected  that  the  said  car  might  have 
been  used  in  the  commission  of  crime  and 
as  such,  he  deputed  a  person  to  guard  the 
car  and  found  that  all  the  three  cars  of 
the  CM  were  badly  damaged  along  with 
other  police  vehicles.  Police 

photographer  as  well  as  Dr.Mishra  of  FSL 
Punjab  also  reached  at  the  spot  and  they 
also  inspected  the  spot  and  took  the 
photographs,  Ex.PW119/l  to  Ex.PW119/71, 
showing  as  details  of  the  place  of 
occurrence  and  scene  of  crime. 

After    conducting    the    proceedings  at 
the      spot,       he  reached      at  P.G.I, 

Chandigarh  and  recorded  the  statement  of 
C.Pala  Ram,  Ex.PW30/3,  who  deposed  as  to 
how  the  bomb  blast  took  place. 
Thereafter,  he  again  reached  at  the  spot 
and  conducted  the  search  of  car  No.  DBA- 
9598  and  from  the  registration 
certificate  mark  WW,  he  came  to  know  that 
the  Car  was  registered  in  the  name  of 
Mrs.Reva  Dutta  and  he  accordingly  took 
into  possession  the  RC,  Insurance  Cover 
Note  and  slip  containing  writings  in 
Punjabi  vide  separate  seizure  memo, 
Ex.PW177/7  and  the  car  was  also  taken 
separately  vide  seizure  memo,  Ex.PW177/6 
along    with    the    bunch    of    keys.     He  also 


151 


proved  the  inquest  proceedings  of  all  the 
dead  bodies  and  deposed  that  during  the 
investigation,  he  found  two  sheared  legs, 
one  of  which  was  near  the  car  of  CM, 
Punjab  and  a  skull  without  torso,  which 
was  later  on  identified  to  be  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  and  all  the  dead  bodies 
were  sent  to  the  Hospitals  for  postmortem 
examination  and  in  the  meanwhile,  formal 
FIR  was  registered. 

He  also  prepared  the  inquest 
report  of  the  dead  body  of  deceased  Beant 
Singh  and  two  legs  and  a  skull  and 
thereafter  he  prepared  a  detailed  rough 
site  plan  of  the  place  of  occurrence, 
Ex.PW240/2.  He  also  proved  that  the 
photographs  of  two  legs  and  skull  were 
also  taken  by  the  Expert,  which  are 
Ex.PW119/71  to  Ex.PW119/94.  He  also 
deposed  that  he  took  into  possession  the 
various  articles  lying  at  the  spot  as 
mentioned  in  the  seizure  memo,  Ex.PW179/5 
and  Ex.PW179/8.  He  further  deposed  that 
on  the  same  day,  he  also  recovered  all 
the  available  incriminating  articles 
like  burn  metallic  pieces,  some  debris 
of  the  VIP  Car,  clothes  and  other 
articles  numbering  in  27  and  those  were 
taken      into      possession      as      per  memo, 


152 


Ex.PW179/6  and  he  also  identified  those 
articles  as  Ex.P159  to  Ex.P185.  He  also 
deposed  about  the  postmortem  and  inquest 
proceedings  of  the  dead  and  examination 
and  injury  record  of  the  injured. 

He  further  deposed  that  on 
1.9.1995,  investigation  of  this  case  was 
handed  over  to  the  CBI  and  as  such,  he 
handed  over  all  the  case  diary  documents 
prepared  by  him  to  Shri  S.K.Saxena,  DSP, 
CBI  and  the  case  property  recovered  from 
the  spot,  was  deposited  in  the  malkhana 
of  the  Police  Station. 

He  further  deposed  that  after 
transfer  of  the  investigation  to  the  CBI 
he  remained  associated  in  the 
investigations  of  the  case  along  with  the 
CBI  as  per  their  direction. 

PW-241,     Surinder    Pal,     who  was 

also  member  of  the  investigating  team 
deposed  about  the  investigation  carried 
out  by  him.  As  per  this  witness,  on 
1.9.1995,  he  had  taken  S.K.Chadha,  Finger 
Print  Expert  of  CFSL,  New  Delhi  and 
Gautam  Rai,  Photographer  to  the  Police 
Station  North,  Chandigarh  where  the  Car 
bearing  No.    DBA-9598   was   examined  by  the 


153 


Experts  for  taking  chance  finger  prints 
and  after  taking  the  requisite  prints  and 
photographs,  memo  Ex.PW78/l  was  prepared, 
which  was  signed  by  the  witnesses.  He 
further  deposed  that  Sh . S . K . Chadha  has 
taken  35  questioned  prints  and 
photographs  and  as  per  his  direction, 
rear  view  mirror  of  the  car  was  also 
taken  into  possession  for  examination  in 
the  Laboratory  along  with  further 
incriminating  articles,  recovered  from 
the  Car  and  thereafter  he  recorded  the 
statement  of  the  witnesses  associated  in 
the  investigation,  as  per  the  direction 
of  the  Chief  Investigating  Officer. 


He  further  deposed  that  on 
6.9.1995,  both  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
and  Gurmeet  Singh  were  produced  in  the 
court  and  their  police  remand  was 
obtained  and  thereafter  he  also  deposed 
about  the  detailed  investigation  carried 
out  by  him,  which  will  be  discussed  at 
the  appropriate  time. 

PW-242,  Dr.M.A.Ali,  Principal 
Scientific  Officer,  CFSL,  New  Delhi  has 
examined  the  questioned  documents 
recovered  during  the  investigations  of 
the    case   with    the    admitted   and  specimen 


154 


hand  writing  and  signatures  of  the 
various  accused  persons  and  gave  his 
opinion  and  proved  the  same  in  the  court 
as  per  his  report,  Ex.PW242/l  to 
Ex. PW242/17 . 

PW-243,  A.P.Singh,  who  was  also 
member  of  the  investigating  team,  deposed 
about  the  details  of  the  investigation 
carried  out  by  him,  which  will  be 
discussed  at  the  appropriate  time. 

PW-244,    Dr.R.S.Dhanker,    who  was 

also  member  of  the  investigating  team, 
deposed  about  the  details  of  the 
investigations  carried  out  by  him  and  it 
will  be  discussed  at  the  appropriate 
time . 

PW-245,  Dr.Lalji  Singh,  Director 
Centre  for  Cellular  and  Molecular 
Biology,  Hyderabad  has  conducted  the  DNA 
test  to  establish  the  identity  of  the 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  as  the  Human  bomb 
on  the  basis  of  two  legs  and  skull 
recovered  from  the  spot  and  accordingly, 
he  deposed  that  on  the  asking  of  the  CBI, 
he  came  to  Chandigarh,  where  two  legs  and 
head  lying  in  the  mortuary,  were  shown  to 
him    and    father    and    brother    of  deceased 


155 


Dilawar  identified  the  body  of  Dilawar 
Singh  but  they  were  not  100%  sure.  As 
such  to  establish  this  fact  through  DNA 
Finger  Printing,  the  blood  samples  of 
Harnek  Singh  father  of  the  deceased, 
Chamkaur  Singh,  brother  of  the  deceased 
and  her  mother  were  taken  and  thereafter 
some  samples  of  some  muscle  pieces  were 
taken  from  both  the  legs  and  skull,  vide 
a  separate  identification  card  in  the 
sealed  parcels.  After  this,  he  conducted 
the  requisite  DNA  test  for  comparison  and 
matching  of  the  DNA  of  Dilawar  Singh  with 
the  samples  of  his  family  members  and  as 
per  his  report,  Ex.PW245/7  he  found  that 
both  the  legs  and  the  skull  are  the  part 
of  the  body  of  the  same  person  and  that 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  was  progeny  of 
aforesaid  Harnek  Singh  and  Surjit  Kaur  as 
the  DNA  of  body  parts  and  Harnek  Singh  & 
Surjit  Kaur  matched  with  each  other. 

PW-246,  Shri  A.K.Chanda  was  also  a 
member  of  the  investigating  team  under 
DSP  Punia,  who  was  the  first  Chief 
Investigating  Officer,  and  he  accordingly 
deposed  that  on  the  asking  of  the  Chief 
Investigating  Officer,  he  brought  Harnek 
Singh  and  Chamkaur  Singh  to  P.G.I  for  the 
identification    of    two    legs    and    a  skull 


156 


and  both  of  them  identified  the  same  to 
be  of  Dilawar  Singh  and  thereafter  their 
blood  samples  were  also  taken  in  his 
presence . 

PW-247,     Randhir      Singh  Punia, 

who  was  the  first  Chief  Investigating 
Officer  from  the  side  of  CBI  and 
investigated  the  case  upto  7.9.1995, 
deposed  about  the  details  of  the 
investigations  carried  out  by  him,  which 
will  be  discussed  later  on  at  the 
appropriate  time. 

PW-248,  S.N.Saxena  was  the  main  Chief 
Investigating  Officer  of  the  case,  who 
took  over  the  investigation  from  PW-247. 
He  also  deposed  as  to  the  details  of  the 
investigation  carried  out  by  him  and  by 
the  other  members  of  the  Investigating 
Team,  as  per  his  instructions,  leading  to 
the  arrest  of  each  and  every  accused 
person  and  the  act  &  conduct  of  the  each 
and  every  accused  person  to  link  him  with 
the  crime  &  question.  The  gist  of  the 
investigation  of  this  witness  is  that 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  who  was 
trained  in  Pakistan,  was  motivated  by  the 
terrorists  to  kill  Beant  Singh  and 
consequent   to   that,    he   came   to   India  and 


157 


conspired  with  the  remaining  accused 
persons  to  commit  the  crime,  consequent 
to  which,  Dilawar  Singh,  assassin,  acted 
as  an  human  bomb  and  exploded  himself 
near  the  Chief  Minister,  Beant  Singh  on 
31.8.1995,  resulting  into  the  death  of 
Beant  Singh  and  other  persons. 

IMPORTANT  DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE  OF  THE 
PROSUECITON: 

56.  A  Although,      it     was      a     marathon  trial 

involving  thousands  of  documents  but  the  important 
documents  relied  upon  by  the  prosecution  and  which 
are  material  for  the  adjudication  of  the  case  are 
mentioned  herein  below  for  ready  reference :- 

Ex.PW30/3  : 

Statement  of  Constable  Pala  Ram 
giving  the  first  hand  information  as 
to  how  the  bomb  blast  took  place 
and  on  the  basis  of  which  formal 
FIR  No. 96  Ex.PW30/4  was  registered 
in  the  Police  Station  North, 
Chandigarh 

EX.PW217/2  : 

Copy  of  the  FIR  No .  RC  9(S)/95-SIU 
dt. 1.9. 1995  registered  by  the  CBI 
after  taking  over  the  investigation 
of  this  case,   as     per   the  directions 

158 


of  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs. 

EX.PW116/1 

to  EX.PW116/4  6: 

All  the  proceedings  relating  to  the 
postmortem  examination  of  dead 
bodies  of  Yash  Pal  Bali,  Lachman 
Dass,  Mukhtiar  Singh  and  Ranjodh 
Singh  including  the  inquest 
proceedings  and  other  police 
proceedings 


All  the  proceedings  relating  to 
postmortem  examination  of  dead 
bodies  of  Chamkaur  Singh,  ASI 
Jagdish  Singh,  Tota  Ram  and  Dhanwant 
Singh  including  the  inquest 
proceedings  and  other  police 
proceedings 


All  the  proceedings  relating  to  the 
postmortem  examination  of  dead 
bodies  of  Swaran  Singh,  Kultar  Singh 
including  the  inquest  proceedings 
and  other  police  proceedings 

EX.PW3/1  to 
EX.PW3/10 


Ex.PWl/1 

to  Ex.PWl/12 


EX.PW2/1 

to  EX.PW2/21 


159 


All  the  proceedings  relating  to  the 
postmortem  examination  of  dead 
bodies  of  Jagdish  Singh  s/o  Dial 
Singh  including  the  inquest 
proceedings  and  other  police 
proceedings . 

EX.PW4/1  to 
EX.PW4/23 

All  the  proceedings  relating  to  the 
postmortem  examination  of  dead 
bodies  of  Ajaib  Singh  &  Rajinder 
Parsad  including  the  inquest 
proceedings  and  other  police 
proceedings . 

All  the  proceedings  relating  to 
the  postmortem  examination  of  dead 
body  of  Balbir  Singh  including  the 
inquest  proceedings  and  other  police 
proceedings . 

EX.PW6/1  to 
Ex.PW6/95 

All  the  proceedings  relating  to  the 
postmortem  examination  of  dead  body 
of  Beant  Singh  the  then  Chief 
Minister,  Dr. Anil  Duggal  and  Baldev 
Singh  and  the  proceedings 
conducted  for  thepostmortem  of  two 
legs  and     head         recovered   from  the 


EX.PW5/1 

to  EX.PW5/12 


160 


EX.PW14/1 

to  EX.PW14/12 


EX.PW32/1  to 
EX.PW32/9 


EX.PW34/1  to 
EX.PW34/4 


place        of  blast,         which  was 

unidentified  including     the  inquest 

proceedings  and  other  police 
proceedings . 


Copies  of  the  MLRs  of  all  the 
injured  namely  Amar  Singh, Bakshish 
Singh,  Manojit  Pal,  Varinder  Rana, 
Joginder  Singh,  Kesar  Singh, Manmohan 
Singh,  Upkar  Singh,  Kulwant  Singh 
and  Satinder  Kumar,  who  received 
injuries  because  of  this  bomb  blast. 


The  registration  certificate,  copy 
of  Insurance  note,  copy  of  the  cash 
receipt,  copy  of  form  No.  29  and  30 
and  memo  of  identification  of  Car 
No.DBA-9598,  Ex.P76  as  proved  by  PW- 
32  Subhash  Kumar  Dutta,  who  sold 
this  car  to  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara,  who  represented  himself  as 
Basant  Singh  while  purchasing  the 
car . 


Non  judicial 
affidavit  of 
and     name  of 


stamp  paper 
Amar  Singh 
transferee 


on  which 
was  typed 
was  left 


161 


blank  along  blank  form  no. 29  &  30 
relating  to  Scooter  No.PB-11  1955 
Ex.P77,  which  was  sold  by  PW-34  to 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  assassin. 

EX.PW42/1  : 

Registration  book  of  Scooter  No.PB- 
11-1955,  which  was  earlier  owned  by 
PW-34  Kamalpreet  Singh  Walia,  who, 
in  turn,  sold  the  same  to  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh. 

EX.PW43/1  to 
Ex.PW43/6  and 
EX.PW44/1  to 
Ex.PW44/10  and 
EX.PW47/1 

All  the  documents  related  to 
ownership  and  transfer  of  Scooter 
No.PCP-2085,  which  was  originally 
owned  by  PW-45  B.K.Chopra,  who 
sold  the  same  to  PW-47  Harjit  Singh, 
who,  in  turn,  sold  the  same  to 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh. 

Documents  relating  to  the 

registration  of  the  Scooter  No.PB- 
11-1955  originally  in  the  name  of 
Darshan  Singh  and  thereafter 
transferred     in     the     name     of  Major 


EX.PW44/1  to 
EX.PW44/10 


162 


Singh  and  then  in  the  name  of  Amar 
Singh  PW-42. 


Ex.PW49/l  : 

Traffic  Challan  Book  proved  by  PW- 
49,  ASI  Arun  Kumar  vide, which 
accused  Balwant  Singh  was  challaned 
on  24.8.1995. 


EX.PW59/A  to 
EX.PW59/L  : 

The  original  documents  including  the 
identity  card,  driving  licence,  2-3 
applications  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  one  Account  Opening  Form  of 
the  Bank  and  2-3  slips  of  cash  memos 
containing  the  hand  writing  and 
signatures  of   accused  Lakhwinder 

Singh  as   identified  by  PW-59 

C.Balwinder  Singh. 


Ex. CD/1  : 

Writing  of  accused  Balwant  Singh 
vide,  which  he  stated  that  he  does 
not  want  to  cross  examine  PW-60  Raju 
Tamir  Haran. 

Ex . PW60/A, 
Ex . PW60/B , 
EX.PW60/B-1  to 
EX.PW60/B-53 


163 


The      original  hand     writing  and 

signatures  of  accused  Balwant  Singh 
in  his  diary  as  identified  by  PW-60 
Raju  Tamir  Haran. 

Ex . PW61/A  to 
Ex . PW61/C  : 

The  letter 
termination 
Singh  as  S.P. 

Ex . PW62/A  to 
Ex . PW62/D 

Service  book,  appointment  letter  and 
other  record  relating  to  the 
appointment  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh  as  Constable  in  the  Punjab 
Police  and  his  posting  as  gunman 
with  Bhushan  Sirhandi,  a  Press 
Reporter . 


Attendance  register,  leave  card  of 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  proved  by  PW- 
64  &  identified  the  hand  writing 
and  signatures  of  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh . 

Ex . PW65/A  to 


of        appointment  & 
of       assassin  Dilawar 
0  in  the  Police  Deptt. 


Ex . PW64/A  to 
Ex . PW64/D 


164 


Ex . PW65/G 


Ex . PW68/A 


Ex . PW68/B 


Ex . PW68/C 


EX.PW72/1 


Proceedings  relating  to  recording  of 
the  confession  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh  by  PW-65  B . K . Maheshwari ,  then 
Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala 
House, New  Delhi. 


Disclosure  statement  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  made  in  the  presence 
of  PW-70,    Pranab  Sain. 


The  memo  of  recovery  of  the  articles 
exhibited  as  Ex.P-83  to  Ex.P-93 
recovered  from  the  room  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  in  the  conseguences  of 
his  disclosure  statement. 


The  memo  of  search  of  room  of 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  along  with 
recovery  of  articles . 


Slip  containing  the  registration  of 
Scooter  No . PB-1 1-1 955  parked  by 
accused  Balwant  Singh  in  the  parking 
of  PW-72. 


165 


EX.PW72/2  : 

Memo  of  recovery  of  Scooter  and  other 
articles  lying  in  the  Scooter  found 
during  the  search  of  the  Scooter 
No . PB-11-1 955  made  in  the  presence  of 
PW-72,  Prem  Chand  and  PW-73,  Kirat 
Mohinder  of  Pritam  Cycle  Stand, 
Patiala . 

Ex . PW7  5  /  A , 
EX.PW75/A-2  & 
Ex . PW75/B 

The  measurement-cum-bill  book 

containing  stitching  of  belt  by  PW- 
75,  Jasbir  Singh  on  the  asking  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara. 


The  measurement-cum-bill  book  of  PW- 
76,  Amarjit  Singh,  Tailor  Master 
containing  the  slip  Ex.PW76/l-A  for 
stitching  the  uniform  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh . 

Ex.PW80/l  : 

Disclosure  statement  of  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  recorded  in  the 
presence  of  PW-80,   Kirpal  Singh. 


EX.PW76/1  to 
EX.PW76/4 


166 


Ex.PW81/l  : 

Disclosure       statement      of  accused 
Nasib     Singh  allegedly  made  in  the 
presence  of  PW-81,   Raghubir  Singh. 

Ex.PW81/2  : 

Recovery  memo  of  RDX  recovered  from 
the     residence     allegedly  recovered 
from    the    house    of    Nasib    Singh,  in 
the  presence  of  PW-81. 


Ex.PW83/l  : 

Search  memo       regarding  the 

search-cum-recovery     memo  conducted 
in     the     house     of     accused  Balwant 
Singh     in     the     presence     of  PW-83, 
Jasbir  Singh  landlord  of  the  house. 


Ex.PW85/l  : 

Search-cum-Recovery  memo 
articles    recovered    from  the 
the    deceased    Dilawar  Singh 
in         the         presence  of 
G.D.Achint . 

Ex.PW86/l  to 
Ex.PW86/13 

All    the   proceedings    relating   to  the 

recording      of      the      confession  of 

accused    Jagtar    Singh    Tara    u/s  164 


and  the 
room  of 
compared 
PW-85, 


167 


Cr.P.C  by  PW-86  Sh.Balbir  Singh  then 
Special  Judicial  Magistrate, 

Patiala . 


EX.PW87/1 

to  Ex.PW87/23  : 

Proceedings  relating  to  the 
recording  of  statement  of  the 
witnesses  Gurinder  Singh,  Gurbachan 
Singh  and  Tejinderpal  Singh  by 
Rajinder  Singh  then  Metropolitan 
Magistrate,   Tis  Hazari,New  Delhi. 


Proceedings  relating  to  the  search 
and  recovery  of  the  articles  from 
the  house  of  Jaswant  Singh,  Foster 
father  of  Baljit  Singh  showing  the 
recovery  of  articles,  Ex.PW-121  to 
Ex. PW-136 . 

EX.PW104/A  : 

Memo  of  recovery  for  taking  into 
possession  the  service  book  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  prepared  by 
PW-89,    Inspector  Hardip  Singh. 

Ex.PW90/l  and 
Ex.PW90/2  : 

Proceedings    regarding    the    search  of 


EX.PW88/1  to 
Ex.PW88/3 


168 


house  of  Balwant  Singh. 


EX.PW91/1  to 
Ex.PW91/22 


Ex.PW93/l 


EX.PW94/1  to 
Ex.PW94/3 


Various  goods  receipts  and  the 
application  and  other  documents  in 
the  hand  writing  of  accused  Navjot 
Singh,  as  proved  on  the  file  by 
PW-91,  Ram  Singh  and  PW-92,  Gurpreet 
Singh,  a  co-employee  of  accused 
Navjot  Singh. 

Seizure  memo  vide,  which  personal 
file  of  accused  Navjot  Singh,  Store 
Clerk,  Ranbaxy  Lab  Limited,  along 
with  the  goods  receipts  were  taken 
into  possession  from  PW-93,  Major 
S.S.Bedi,  Security  Adviser  of 
Ranbaxy  Lab  Limited. 


The  entries  made  by  PW-94,  Gurpreet 
Singh  in  the  Hotel  Register  Ex.PW- 
94/3  of  Hotel  President  Sita  Bardi, 
Nagpur  in  the     name      of  Sandeep 

Sharma  on  the  asking  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh,  in  the  presence  of  PW 
Tejinder  Pal  Singh 


169 


Ex.PW95/l  to 
Ex.PW95/3  : 

The  entry  No.  1842  on  the  Hotel 
Register,  Ex.PW95/3  of  Anand  Mehal 
Lodge,  Nagpur  made  by  PW-95  on  the 
asking  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  in 
the  name  of  Sandeep  Sharma. 

Ex.PW95/4  : 

Seizure  memo  containing  the  letters 
written  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  to 
PW-95  and  handed  over  by  him  to  the 
police.  The  letters  are  Ex.PW60/B-54 
to  Ex.PW60/B-62 

Ex.PW95/5  to 
Ex.PW95/16  : 

Sheets  containing  the  specimen  hand 
writing     and     signatures     of  PW-95, 
Tejinder  Pal  Singh. 

EX.PW95/17 
to  Ex.PW95/25 
Mark  FFFFF, 
Mark  YY/3  to 
mark  YY/5, 
Ex.PW88/3 
Ex.PW95/26 

Photographs  of  Balwant  Singh  and 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh. 

EX.PW60-B-1  to 
EX.PW60-B-53 

Writing  on  the  pages   of  diary, Ex. PW- 


170 


60/B  in  the  hands  of  Balwant  Singh, 
as  identified  by  PW-95,  Tejinder  Pal 
Singh . 


Ex.PW95/29  to 
Ex.PW95/50  : 

Various  entries  made  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh  in  his  assumed  name  as 
Sandeep  Sharma,  Rajiv  Kumar,  in  the 
various  Hotels  where  he  stayed 
after  escaping  from  Chandigarh 
till  his  arrest  as  identified  by  PW- 
95,   Tejinder  Pal  Singh. 

Ex.PW99/l  : 

Memo  of  identification  vide  which 
PW-99  Chamkaur  Singh  and  his  father 
Harnek  Singh  identified  two  legs  and 
skull  of  deceased  assassin  Dilawar 
Singh . 


Identification       forms       vide  which 
blood    sample    of    Chamkaur    Singh  and 
his     father     were     taken     for  DNA 
testing . 

Ex.PW99/4  : 

An      application      in      the      hands  of 


Ex.PW99/2  & 
Ex.PW99/3 


171 


deceased  Dilawar  Singh  as  identified 
by  PW-99,   Chamkaur  Singh. 

Ex.PW99/5 
Ex.PW99/6 

The  application  moved  by  PW-99 
Chamkaur  Singh  and  his  father  for 
taking  the  delivery  of  the  remnants 
of  the  parts  of  the  body  of  assassin 
Dilawar  Singh  along  with  the 
receipts . 

Ex.PWlOO/1  : 

Memo  of  recovery  vide  which 
articles,  Ex.P137  to  Ex.P150 
regarding  the  records  of  militant 
out-fits  maintained  by  Intelligence 
being  Punjab  Police, was  handed  over 
to  the  CBI  including  the  poster 
Ex.P150,  vide  which  the  assassin 
Dilawar  Singh  was  shown  to  be  a 
martyr  for  killing  Beant  Singh 
published  by  Babbar  Khalsa 
International . 

Ex.PWlOl/A 

to  Ex.PWlOl/D  : 

Signature  of  PW-101,  Satwinder  Singh 
@  Simpy  on  the  photo  graphs  of 
accused     Lakhwinder     Singh,  Dilawar 


172 


Singh, Jagtar     Singh  Hawara, 
Singh,      Balwant     Singh  mark 
Mark-         PPPPP,Ex.DC/2,  mark 
mark  UUU/2 . 

EX.PW103/A 
to  EX.PW103/H, 
EX.PW103/J, 
EX.PW103/J/1  and 
EX.PW103/J/2, 
EX.PW103/K  to 
EX.PW103/M  : 

The      proceedings      relating      to  the 

recording    of    confession    of  accused 

Shamsher    Singh    @     Shera    by  PW-103, 

Dinesh  Kumar         Sharma  then 

Metropolitan    Magistrate    at  Patiala 

Court,   House, New  Delhi. 

EX.PW105/1  to 
EX.PW105/61 

Sheets  containing  the  specimen 
writing  and  signatures  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  in  Hindi,  English  & 
Punjabi  and  also  in  numerals  taken 
in  the  presence       of  PW-105. 


Sheets  containing      the  specimen 

writing  and  signatures  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  in  Hindi,  English  & 
Punjabi  and      also    in   numerals  taken 


Gurmeet 
00000, 
QQQQQ, 


EX.PW105/62 
EX.PW105/62 


173 


in  the 


presence  of  PW-105. 


EX.PW106/1  to 
EX.PW106/19 


EX.PW107/1 


Sheets  containing  the  specimen 
writing  and  signatures  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  in  English  taken  in 
the  presence    of  PW-105. 


Statement  of  PW-107  u/s  164  Cr.P.C 
recorded  by  PW-108. 


EX.PW108/1  to 
EX.PW108/6  : 

Proceedings  relating  to  recording 
statement  of  witness  Sapinder  Singh 
@  Pappu  by  PW-108,  Paramjit  Singh 
then  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Tis 
Hazari,  New  Delhi  which  is 
Ex. PW107/1 . 


Ex.PWlll/1  to 
Ex.PWlll/4 


Endorsement  made  by  PW-111,  Mohan 
Lai  regarding  the  identification  of 
the  photographs  Ex.PUUU/1,  Ex.PSSSS, 
Ex.PWlll/3  of  accused  Balwant  Singh, 
Dilawar  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh 


174 


Ex.PWlll/1 

to  Ex.PWlll/64: 

Sheets  containing  the  specimen  hand 

writing     and     signatures     of  accused 

Lakhwinder  Singh  taken  in  the 

presence     of     PW-112,  Chunni  Lai 

Bali . 

EX.PW115/1  to 
EX.PW115/14  : 

Sheets  containing  the  finger  prints 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  taken  by 
PW-115,  SS  Basoya,  Jr .  Scientific 
Officer  on  the  asking  of  the  CBI . 

EX.PW119/1  to 
EX.PW119/94  : 

Photographs  of  scene  of  occurrence 
showing  the  details  of  the  scene  of 
occurrence  as  well  as  photographs  of 
two  legs  and  skull  taken  by  PW-119, 
Doctor  Gopal  Ji  Mishra. 

EX.PW120/1  to 
EX.PW120/5  : 

Sheets  containing  the  hand  writing 
and  signatures  of  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  taken  in  the  presence  of 
PW-120  P.C.Thakur. 

EX.PW121/1  and 


175 


EX.PW121/2  : 

Disclosure  statements  of  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  suffered  in  the 
presence  of  PW-121,  Anil  Kumar 
Bhatia 

EX.PW121/3  and 
EX.PW121/4  : 

Recovery  memo  showing  the  recovery 
of  sketch  map,  Ex.PW121/3,  as  per 
disclosure  statement  of  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  the  presence 
of  PW-121  and  PW-122. 

EX.PW121/5  : 

Pointing  out  memo  vide  which  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  identified  the 
STD  booth  located  at  Meerut  road  in 
the  presence  of  PW-121  and  PW-122 
and  owner  of  the  STD  booth. 

EX.PW122/1  and 
EX.PW122/2  : 

Photographs  of  Ram  Singh  @  Kuldip 
Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  identified  by 
PW-122 . 

EX.PW123/1  to 
EX.PW123/8  : 

Seizure  memos  vide  which  the  letters 
written  by  Manjinder  Singh  to  PW- 
123,   Harbinder  Singh. 


176 


EX.PW124/A, 
EX.PW124/A-1  & 
EX.PW124/A-2  : 

Register  of  Gurdwara  Sheesh  Gan j , 
New  Delhi  containing  the  entries 
regarding  the  stay  of  Manjinder 
Singh  in  the  Gurdwara  taken  into 
possession  vide  memo  Ex . PW124/B, when 
produced  by  PW-124  and  PW-125. 

EX.PW134/1 
EX.PW134/2-A 
to  EX.PW134/2-C 
and  EX.PW134/3: 

The    register    maintained    by    PW-  134 

for    running    the    STD    PCO  containing 

the  details  of  the  calls  made  in  the 

month  of  October   &   November,    1995  by 

accused      Jagtar      Singh      Hawara  as 

proved  by  PW-134. 

EX.PW160/1  : 

The  report  of  PW-160,  Dr.RS.Verma, 
of  CFSL  Chandigarh  vide  which  all 
the  articles  recovered  from  the  room 
of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  Ex.P-82  to 
Ex.P-91,when  examined  in  the 
Laboratory  were  found  containing  the 
traces  of  RDX. 

EX.PW163/1  to 
EX.PW163/3  : 


177 


Two  FDRs  receipts  in  the  name  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  which  were 
recovered  from  his  house,  when 
searched  by  PW-164  P.C.Sharma, 
Inspector,  CBI  in  the  presence  of 
PW-163  Raj  Mohan  and  taken  into 
possession        vide  memo  Ex.PW163/3. 

EX.PW165/1  : 

Report  of  Roop  Singh,  a  Ballistic 
Expert  of  CFSL,  Delhi  vide  which 
after  examining  27  articles  in 
various  Division  of  the  Central 
Forensic  Laboratory,  PW-165 

concluded  that  a  powerful  improvised 
explosive  device  had  exploded  at  the 
rear  left  side  which  is  near  the 
dickey  portion  of  CMS  s  Car  bearing 
registration  no.  PB-08-3469  at  the 
height  of  3  feet  above  the  ground 
level  and  about  2  kg  of  hike 
explosive  RDX  has  been  used  along 
with  1  to  2  kg  missiles  in  the  form 
of  iron  bolls  nut  &  bolts  etc  and 
this  explosion  has  been  caused  by  a 
human  bomb  who  tied  the  explosive 
belt  around  his  waist. 

EX.PW165/2  : 

The     report     of     PW-165,     Roop  Singh 


178 


Ballistics  Expert  after  examining 
the  gunny  bag,  Ex.P-98  containing 
RDX  recovered  from  the 

possession  of  accused  Nasib  Singh, 
Ex.P99  who,  vide  his  report 
confirmed  that  this  black  sticky 
material  is  RDX  based  high  explosive 
and  the  traces  of  the  RDX  were  found 
on  27  articles  recovered  from  the 
side  of  the  blast. 


EX.PW165/3 


The  report  of  PW-165  Ballistics 
Expert  regarding  the  examination 
of  belt  Ex.P-97  and  vide  this  report 
PW-165  held  that  two  Kg  of  RDX  based 
highly  explosive  can  be  filled  in 
the  said  cloth  belt. 


EX.PW165/4  : 

Report  of  PW-165  Ballistics  Expert 
regarding  examination  of  battery 
Ex.P-153  recovered  from  the  Car 
bearing  registration  No.DBA-9598  and 
vide  this  report  PW-165  opined  that 
a  battery  similar  to  the  9  bolt 
battery  Ex.P-153  have  been  used  in 
causing  the  explosion  on  the  date  of 
bomb  blast. 


179 


EX.PW165/5  : 

The  report  of  PW-165,  Ballistics 
Expert,  vide  which,  after  examining 
the  pieces  of  the  news  paper 
recovered  from  the  room  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh,  in  the  Ballistics 
Division,  PW-165  found  traces  of 
blackish  material  and  after  chemical 
instrumental  analysis  the  presence 
of  the  RDX  based  high  explosive  in 
the  stain  available  on  the  news 
pieces  Ex.P-88  were  confirmed. 


EX.PW165/6  : 

Report  of  PW-165,  Roop  Singh 
Ballistics  Expert,  regarding 

examination  of  25  parcels  and  vide 
this  report  after  examining  articles 
in  the  various  laboratories  of  CFSL, 
PW-165  concluded  that  presence  of 
RDX  based  high  explosive  as  well 
as  the  traces  of  PETN  was  detected 
in  the  contents  of  13  parcels  which 
included  the  metallic  pieces,  other 
articles  and  the  blood  stained 
clothes  of  the  person  died  in  the 
blast . 


EX.PW166/1  to 


180 


EX.PW166/29 


Various  proceedings  and  the  report 
of  PW-166, Tilak  Raj  Nehra  a  document 
expert  of  the  CFSL,  New  Delhi  who 
after  comparing  the  questioned  and 
standard  writings  attributed  to 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Gurmeet 
Singh,  Balwant  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  and  Navjot  Singh  vide  his 
report, Ex. PW166/26  &  Ex.PW166/28 
gave  his  opinion  as  to  the 
authorship  of  these  hand  writings 
and  found  that  the  questioned  and 
writings  of  all  the  accused 
persons,  when  compared  with  the 
admitted  hand  writings,  was  found  to 
be  in  the  hands  of  one  and  the  same 
person . 

EX.PW167/1  & 
EX.PW167/2 

Report  of  PW-167  Dr.Rajinder  Singh, 
a  Senior  Scientific  Officer  of  CFSL 
in  the  Physics  Division,  who 
examined  Battery  Ex.P53  and  27 
sealed  articles  and  gave  his  opinion 
about  the  same. 


EX.PW178/1  to 
EX.PW178/7 


181 


Report  of  PW-178,  S.K.Chadha,  a 
Finger  Print      Expert      of  CFSL, 

Chandigarh  who  visited  the  spot  on 
1.9.1995  and  examined  the  scene  of 
crime  as  well  as  the  Car  bearing 
registration  No.DBA-9598,  Ex.P76  and 
took  the  various  chance  finger 
prints  from  the  said  car  and  also 
took  the  photographs  of  all  those 
finger  prints  and  the  articles  and 
after  comparing  the  same  with  the 
specimen  thumb  impression  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
found  the  same  to  be  similar  with 
the  chance  print  as  per  reasons 
given  in  his  report. 

EX.PW178/8  : 

Report  of  PW-178,  S.K.Chadha  Finger 
Print  Expert,  vide  which  after 
taking  the  finger  print  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  compared  the  same 
with  guestioned  finger  print,  he 
concluded  that  those  are  similar 
to  the  guestion  finger  print. 

EX.PW179/5  : 

The  memo  of  recovery  of  various 
articles  which  were  taken  into 
possession    from    the    scene    of  crime 


182 


on  1.9.1995  by  PW-240,Nanha  Ram  in 
the  presence  of  PW-179,  SI  Ved 
Parkash . 


EX.PW191/1-A 
to 

EX.PW191/1-C  : 

The  seizure  memo  vide  which,  on 
3.9.1995  PW-231,  A.K.Ohri  recovered 
incriminating  articles  from  the 
scene  of  crime  including  pieces  of 
human  flesh  human  skull  with  hair, 
shattered  pieces  and  clothes  some 
pieces  of  body  part  of  Car  damaged 
in  blast. 

EX.PW198/1 
to 

EX.PW198/4  : 

Various  seizure  memos  vide  which  PW- 
198,  Sunil  Kumar  Sharma,  Inspector 
C.B.I  took  into  possession  the 
record  of  the  STD  booth  and  Hotels. 

EX.PW201/1 
to 

Ex.PW201/3  : 

The  disclosure  statements  suffered 
by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
accused  &  Balwant  Singh  in  the 
presence  of  PW-201,  S.V.  Singh  being 
an  independent  witness. 

Ex.PW201/4  : 


183 


The  identification  memo,   vide  which 
accused     Jagtar         Singh  Hawara 
identified  room  no. 203  of  the  Guest 
House  where  he  met  Manjinder  Singh 
co-accused . 

Ex.PW201/5  : 

Identification  memo,  vide  which 
accused  Balwant  Singh, identified  the 
room  of  the  Surya  Guest  House,  where 
he  stayed  and  met  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara . 

Ex.PW201/6  : 

The  identification  memo,  vide  which 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
identified  the  STD  PCO  located  in 
Bhagat  Singh  market, New  Delhi  from 
where  he  used  to  make  calls  to 
Germany . 

Ex.PW207/l  : 

Signature  of  Wadhawa  Singh  on  the 
fax  message  mark  AAA,  DDD,  EEE,  FFF 
vide  which  PW-207  identified  the 
signature  of  Wadhawa  Singh  on  the 
documents . 

Ex.PW210/l  : 

Seizure    memo,    vide    which    the  Hotel 


184 


record  of  Hotel  Prabhat  Calcutta  was 
taken  into  possession  from  PW  210. 


EX.PW211/1 
and 

Ex.PW211/2  : 

Seizure  memo,  vide  which  the 
registration        record       of  the 

Ambassador  Car  bearing 

registration  No.  DBA  9598  was  taken 
into  possession  from  the  possession 
of  PW-211,  Narinder  Singh,  Inspector 
Transport  Authority,   New  Delhi. 

EX.PW212/1 
to 

Ex.PW212/3  : 

Pointing  out  memo  vide  which  accused 
Balwant  Singh  identified  the  various 
shops  at  Patiala  in  the  presence  of 
PW-212 . 


Ex.PW216/l  : 

Disclosure  statement  of  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  suffered  by  him  in 
the  presence  of  PW-216  consequent  to 
which  he  identified  the  house  of  PW- 
32  S.K.Dutta  vide  memo  Ex.PW38/8. 


Ex.PW219/l  : 

Seizure  memo,  vide      which  the 

service        record  file    Ex.PW61/A  of 

deceased     Dilawar  Singh     was  taken 


185 


into  possession  from  PW-219,  HC 
Nahar  Singh. 

EX.PW220/1 
to 

Ex.PW220/6  : 

Proceedings  relating  to  recovery  of 
record  of  Hotel  City  Lodge, Calcutta 
including  guest  register  Ex.PW220/l 
and  the  entries  made  in  this 
register  by  the  persons  who  stayed 
in  the  Hotel. 

Ex.PW223/l 
to 

Ex.PW223/4  : 

Proceedings  relating  to  recovery  of 
register  of  Hotel  Kohinoor,  Agra  and 
the  entries  made  in  the  register 
along  with  the  identification  of  the 
photo  graphs  of  the  accused  persons. 

EX.PW224/1  : 

Proceedings  relating  to 

identification  of  the  photo  graphs 
mark  WWWWW  by  PW-224  regarding  the 
stay  of  that  person  in  their  hotel. 

Ex.PW-225/1 
to 

Ex.PW225/23  : 

Sheets  containing  hand  writing  and 
the     signatures     of     accused  Balwant 


186 


Singh  taken  in  the  presence  of  PW- 
225  Pardeep  Chand. 

Ex.PW226/l 
to 

Ex.PW226/4  : 

The  proceedings  relating  to  recovery 
of  records  of  the  Hotel  Classic 
Calcutta  including  guest  register 
and  the  entries  made  therein  as  well 
as  identity  of  the  photographs  of 
the  persons  stayed. 

Ex.PW228/l  : 

Seizure  memo  vide  which  the  scene  of 
crime  was  inspected  &  the 
incriminating  articles  were  lifted 
on  2.9.1995  by  the  Investigating 
Officer . 

Ex.PW230/l 
and 

Ex.PW230/2  : 

Proceedings   relating  to   the  recovery 
of         register       of       the  Hotel 
Kiran,Agra    in    the    presence    of  PW- 
230  . 

Ex.PW231/l 
to 

Ex.PW231/5  : 

The  seizure  memo  vide  which  PW-  231 
took     into     possession     statement  of 
calls    of    the    call    register    of  STD 
booth,   Nagpur  and  other  STD  booths. 


187 


Ex.PW234/l  : 

Report  of  PW-234,  S.L.Mukhia 
document  expert  of  the  CFSL,  Delhi 
who  after  comparing  the  hand  writing 
and  questioned  documents  with 
specimen  documents  gave  his  opinion 
as  to  theauthorship  of  these  hand 
writings  in  the  hands  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  other  persons. 


Proceedings  relating  to  the 
recording  of  the  statement  of  the 
witnesses  Chamkaur  Singh  u/s  164 
Cr.P.C,  by  PW-235,  Sanjay  Garg,  then 
Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Tis  Hazari 
New  Delhi. 

Ex.PW236/l 

and 
Ex.PW236/2 

The     reports     of     PW-236,  C.M.Patel 
Serological  Expert  of  CFSL  regarding 
the    presence    of    human    blood    on  all 
the    incriminating   articles  recovered 
from  the  spot . 

EX.PW237/1 
and 


Ex.PW235/l 
to 

Ex.PW235/3 


188 


Ex.PW237/2 


Search- cum- recovery 
house      of  accused 
prepared  by  PW-237. 

Ex.PW239/l 
to 

Ex.PW239/10  : 

The  seizure  memo  and  proceedings 
conducted  by  PW-239,  A.S.Kaul 
relating  to  the  investigation  of  the 
case . 


memo  of  the 
Gurmeet  Singh 


Ex.PW240/l  : 

Inguest  proceedings  relating  to  the 
dead  body  of  Beant  Singh. 

Ex.PW240/2  : 

The  rough  site  plan  of  the  scene  of 
crime  and  place  of  occurrence 
prepared  by  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram 
showing  existing  State  of  Affairs, 
when  he  examined  the  scene  of  crime 
immediately  after  the  blast. 


EX.PW241/1  : 

Seizure  memo  regarding  the  service 
record  and  leave  application  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  recovered 
by  PW-241,  Surinder  Pal  Singh  who 
assisted  the  10  . 


189 


EX.PW241/2  : 

The  file  containing  service  record 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  taken 
into  possession  vide  Ex.PW241/l. 


EX.PW241/3 


Arrest-cum-personal  search  memo  of 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara. 


EX.PW241/5  : 

Seizure  memo  for  taking  into 
possession  sealed  packets  from 
Inspector  Nanha  Ram. 


EX.PW242/1 
and 

Ex.PW242/2  : 

The  report  of  PW-242,  M.A.Ali, 
Document  Expert  of  CFSL,  Delhi  who 
after  comparing  the  disputed  hand 
writing  with  specimen  hand  writing 
of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and 
other  accused  persons  and  the 
witnesses,  gave  his  detailed  opinion 
with  regard  to  that. 


EX.PW244/1  : 

Arrest  memo  of  accused  Navjot  Singh 

EX.PW244/2  : 

Search  memo   of   the   house   of  accused 


190 


Navjot  Singh  showing  the  recovery  of 
diary  Ex.PW244/3  containing  writings 
Ex.PW91/23  to  Ex.PW91/25  and  three 
loose  sheets         Ex.PW91/26  to 

Ex. PW91/30 . 

EX.PW244/4  : 

Search  memo  of  the  house  of 
absconding  accused  Jagroop  Singh 
showing  the  recovery  of  documents 
including  the  identity  card  of 
Inderjit  Ex.PW109/l. 


Original  Identification  card  as  well 
as  the  photocopy  of  the  same, 
prepared  by  PW-245  while  taking  the 
muscle  pieces  from  the  two  legs  and 
the  skull  along  with  the  photographs 
of  the  same  for  D.N. A  test. 

EX.PW245/2 
and 

Ex.PW245/6  : 

Original  Identification  card  as  well 
as  the  photocopy  of  the  same, 
prepared  by  PW-245  while  taking  the 
blood  samples  of  Surjit  Kaur  mother 
of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  along 
with  her  photographs   for  the  purpose 


EX.PW245/1, 
EX.PW245/5 


191 


of  DNA  test  to  establish  the 
identity  of  two  legs  and  skull. 

Ex.PW245/3  & 
Ex.PW99/2  : 

Original  Identification  card  as  well 
as  the  photocopy  of  the  same, 
prepared  by  PW-245  while  taking  the 
blood  samples  of  Chamkaur  Singh 
along  with  his  photographs  brother 
of  the  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  for 
the  purpose  of  DNA  test  to  establish 
the  identity  of  two  legs  and  skull. 

EX.PW245/4 
and 

Ex.PW99/3  : 

Original  Identification  card  as  well 
as  the  photo  copy  of  the  same, 
prepared  by  PW-245  while  taking  the 
blood  samples  of      Harnek  Singh 

father  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh, 
along  with  his  photographs  for  the 
purpose  of  DNA  test  to  establish  the 
identity  of  two  legs  and  skull. 

EX.PW245/7  : 
to  EX.PW245/13 

Report  along  with  enclosures  of  PW- 
245  Dr.Lalji  Singh,  Director  Centre 
For  Cellular    Molecular  Biology, 


192 


EX.PW247/1 


EX.PW247/2 


Hyderabad,  who  after  conducting  all 
available  tests  for  the  comparison 
and  matching  of  DNA  of  Dilawar  Singh 
with  other  samples  and  vide  report 
Ex.PW245/7,  PW-245,  Dr. Lai  Ji  Mishra 
concluded  that  as  per  the  DNA 
profile  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  was 
the  Progeny  of  aforesaid  Harnek 
Singh  &  Surjit  Kaur  and  both  the 
legs  and  the  skull  are  of  one  and 
the  same  person. 


Letter  of  Govt  of  India,  Ministry  of 
Home  Affairs  transferring  the 
investigation  of  the  present  case  to 
the  CBI. 


The  copy  of  the  formal  FIR  which  was 
re-registered  by  the  CBI. 


EX.PW247/3 
&  EX.PW247/4 


Disclosure  statements  of  accused 

Balwant  Singh  recorded  by  PW-247, 
R.S.Punia  . 


EX.PW248/1 


Forwarding     letter     of  Ms.Balwinder 


193 


Kaur  of  CFSL,  Chandigarh,  vide  which 
a  report  regarding  lifting  of 
various  articles  from  the  spot 
Ex. PW248/2, was  sent  by  Balwinder 
Kaur  to  the  Chief  Investigating 
Officer 


Ex.PW248/2  : 

Report  of  Balwinder  Kaur  of  CFSL 
Chandigarh  regarding  lifting  of 
various  articles  from  the  spot  for 
examination . 


Ex.PW248/3  : 

The  site  plan  prepared  by  the 
Architect  on  the  direction  of  Chief 
Investigating  Officer  showing  the 
position  of  the  dead  bodies  and 
existing  state  of  affairs. 


EX.PW248/4 


Seizure  memo  of  leave  applications 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh. 


Ex.PW248/5  : 

Sanction  of  Central  Govt  as  per  the 
provision  of  Section  188  of  the 
Cr.P.C  . 


Ex.PW248/6 


194 


Sanction  of  Central  Govt  &  U.T.  Govt 
for  prosecution  in  respect  of 
prosecution  for  offences  under 
Explosive  Substances  Act. 

Ex.PW248/7  : 

Charge  sheet  submitted  in  the  court 
after  the  completion  of 

investigations . 

56. B.  In    addition    to    the    documentary  evidence 

mentioned  above,  the  prosecution  has  relied  upon 
the  photographs  of  accused  persons  as  identified  by 
various  witnesses  during  the  investigations  and 
trial  and  the  details  of  these  photographs  are  as 
follows : - 

Mark  PW244/A  : 

Photographs  of  accused  Jagtat  Singh 
Tara  (since  proclaimed  offender)  as 
identified  by  PW-244  R.S.Dhanker  1st 
Chief  Investigating  Officer  of  the 
case . 

Mark-TTT 
Mark  TTT/1  & 
Mark  TTT/2  : 

Group  photographs  of  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  &  Dilawar  Singh  along  with 
certain  other  persons  identified  by 
PW-51 , Surinder  Sharma 


195 


EX.PW113/1  : 

Group  photograph  of  accused  Dilawar 
Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh  as 
identified  by  PW-51,  Surinder  Kumar 
along  with  his  signatures  on  the 
same . 

Ex.PWlOl/A  : 

Photograph  of  accused  Lucky  as 
identified  by  PW-101,  Satwinder 
Singh  along  with  his  signature  on 
the  same. 

Ex.PWlOl/C  : 

Photograph  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
as  identified  by  PW-101,  Satwinder 
Singh  along  with  his  signature  on 
the  same. 

Ex.PWlOl/B  : 

A  group  photograph  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  &  Dilawar  Singh  as 
identified  by  PW-101,  Satwinder 
Singh  along  with  his  signatures  on 
the  same. 

Ex.PWlll  and 
Mark  HHHH 

photographs  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  as   identified  by  PW-111,  Mohan 


196 


Pal  along  with  his  signatures  on  the 
same . 

Ex.PW32/9  : 

Photo  graph  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  as  identified  by  PW-32, 
S.K.Dutta  along  with  his  signatures 
on  the  same. 

Mark  239/A 
to 

Mark  239/D  : 

Group  Photographs  of  marriage 
ceremony  including  the  photograph  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  as  identified 
by  PW-239,  A.G.Kaul  along  with  his 
signatures  on  the  same. 

Mark-QQQQQ  : 

photographs  of  accused  Balwant  Singh 
as  identified  by  PW-101,  Satwinder 
Singh  along  with  his  signatures  on 
the  same. 

Mark-SSS  : 

Photograph  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
as  identified  by  PW-51,  Surinder 
Sharma  along  with  his  signatures  on 
the  same. 

Mark  TTTTT 


197 


Mark  VWW 


Photographs  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  as  identified  by  PW-210  Ajay 
Gupta  &  PW-220,  Anwar  Khan  along 
with  their  signatures  on  the  same. 

Mark  SSSS  : 

Photograph  of  accused  assassin 
Dilawar  Singh  as  identified  by  PW- 
111,  Mohan  Lai  along  with  his 
signatures  on  the  same. 

5  6.C.        LIST       OF    MATERIAL  INCRIMINATING 
ARTICLES       AND     OBJECTS     WHICH  HAVE       BEEN  RELIED 
UPON       BY     THE  PROSECUTION  TO  LINK  THE  ACCUSED 
PERSONS  WITH  THE  CONSPIRACY. 

ARTICLES:  NATURE  OF  ARTICLES 

Ex.P-1  to  Ex.P36: 

Parcels  containing  clothes  and  the 
belongings    of    the    deceased  persons 
including     the     metallic     and  glass 
pieces       recovered      from      the  dead 
bodies . 

Ex.P37  to  Ex.P44: 

Parcels  containing  the  belongings  of 
the  deceased  Chief  Minister  Beant 
Singh,    Kara    of    Sardar    Beant  Singh, 


198 


Denture  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh, 
suture  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh. 


Ex.P45  to 
Ex. P4  9 : 

Parcels  containing  the  clothes  and 
belongings  of  deceased  Dr. Anil 

Duggal  as  well  as  the  glass  and 
metallic  pieces  removed  from  his 
dead  body  . 

Ex.P50  to  Ex.P53: 

Parcels   containing   shoe   removed  from 
one  of  the  two  legs  as  well  as 
its    wrapper    the    epidermal    cast  and 
the  soul  of  the  right  foot  and  left 
foot . 

Ex.P54  to  Ex.P61: 

Parcels  containing  the  partly  burnt 
shoe  right  side  belt  portion  of  the 
pant,  shirt , undergarment  and  the 
parcel  containing  metallic  pieces 
removed  from  the  dead  body  of 
deceased  Yash  Pal  Bali. 

Ex.P62  to  Ex.P70: 

Packet  containing  khaki  shirt, sky 
shirt,     banyan,     red    kacha,belt  with 


199 


PAP  batch,  portion  of  the  khaki 
pant, left  shoe  partially  burnt, khaki 
socks  and  plastic  jar  removed  from 
the  dead  body  of  deceased  Lachman 
Dass  at  the  time  of  postmortem 
examination . 

Ex.P70  to  Ex.P75: 

Parcel  containing  the  portion 
material  wrapped  in  a  cloth  and 
clothes  of  deceased  Ranjodh  Singh 
removed  at  the  time  of  his 
postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P76 

The  Car  bearing  registration  No . DBA- 
9598  used  by  the  accused  persons  in 
the  commission  of  the  crime. 

Ex.P77 

Scooter  No . PB-11-1 955  which  was  sold 
by  Shri  Kamalpreet  Singh  to  Assassin 
Dilawar  Singh. 

Ex.P78 

Brief  case  used  as  medicine  bag  by 
Dr . Duggal . 

Ex.P79 

Scooter  bearing  registration  No.  DL- 


200 


5-SF-0318 


Ex.P80 

Scooter  No.  PCP  2085  owned  by 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  which  has 
been  used  by  him  in  the  commission 
of  the  crime. 


Ex.P81 

Car  bearing  registration  No . CH-01-G- 
1035  one  of  the  car  which  was 
parked  near  the  VIP  gate  when  the 
explosion  took  place. 


Ex.P82 


Envelope  containing  the  seals  of 
CFSL  . 


Ex.P83 

Envelope   containing  the   seals  of  CBI 

bearing  the  signatures  of  PW-68, 
Puran  Chand. 


Ex. P84 


Polythene  bag  in  which  the  card 
board  was  packed. 


Ex.P85 


Cover  in  which  the  card  board  was 
covered . 


201 


Card  board 

Three  pieces  of  card  board. 
Three  pieces  of  news  paper. 

Envelope      containing      the  sample 
seals  of  CFSL. 

Envelope  containing  the  sample  seals 
of  CBI  also  having  the  signature 
of  PW-68. 


Phial  containing 
recovered    from  the 
Gurmeet  Singh. 


black  granules 
room    of  accused 


Polythene  bag  of  Ferozi 

Helmet   recovered  along  with  Scooter 

No.      PB-11-1955     from  Pritam  Cycle 

Stand,  Patiala  in  the  presence  of 
PW  72  . 


202 


Ex.P95 


The  envelope  containing  the  belt 
recovered  from  the  Scooter. 


Ex. P96 


The  envelope  in  which  the  belt  was 
sealed 


Ex.P97 

The  green  colour  belt  recovered  from 
the  dickey  of  the  Scooter  No.  PB-11- 
1955 


Ex.P98 

The  cloth  bag  in  which  the  belt  was 
sealed 

Ex.P99  to 
EX.P118 

Books,  appointment  letter,  Diary, 
application  form  bearing  the 
signature  of  Dilawar  Singh  and  five 
news  paper  of   ' Aj    Di  Awaz '  of 

different  dates,  one  small  piece  of 
paper  receipt  dt . 31. 8. 1995  recovered 
from  the  room  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh  when  searched  on  5.9.1995  in 
the  presence  of  PW  83. 

EX.P118  to 
EX.P120 


203 


Blank  proforma,  Punjabi  book  title 
Saheed  Bhagat  Singh  and  photo  graph 
of  Dilawar  Singh  which  were 
recovered  from  the  room  of  Dilawar 
Singh  when  searched  in  PW  85 
G. D.Achint . 

EX.P121  to 
EX.P136 

Letters  and  papers  along  with  the 
khaki  uniform  recovered  from  the 
toilet  of  the  house  of  Jaswant 
Singh,  Foster  father  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  in  the  presence  of 
PW-8  8,   Budh  Ram  Garg. 

EX.P137  to 
EX.P150 

Copy  of  the  constitution  magazines 
and  the  statement  issued  by  B.K.I 
in  connection  with  this  case  along 
with  the  published  after  the  murder 
of  Beant  Singh  proclaiming  the 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  as  Martyr 

Ex.P-151  : 

Sealed  envelope  containing  the  seals 
of  the  CFSL  in  which  dry  cell 
battery  was  packed  after  inspection 
by  CFSL. 

EX.P152  : 


204 


The    envelope    in    which  the 
cell  was  recovered  by  the 
Officer . 


battery 
recovery 


EX.P153 


EX.P154 


EX.P155 


EX.P156 


EX.P157 


EX.P158 


Dry  Cell  battery  of  9  volt 


A  tag  of  CFSL  bearing  the  signature 
of  PW-161,    Dr.Rajinder  Singh 


Rear  view  Mirror  of  Car  no.  DBA-9598 


The  cloth  bag  in  which  the  mirror 
was  sealed  . 


A  card  board  cartoon  in  which  the 
parcel  was  again  sealed. 


Collective  parcel  containing  the 
burnt  pieces  of  cloth,  debris,  iron 
pieces  and  various  other  articles  of 
the  dead  persons,  taken  into 
possession  from  the  place  of 
occurrence  on  1.9.1995 


205 


White  pieces  of  cloth  taken  into 
possession  from  the  spot. 

Partly  burnt  Marked  badges  lifted 
from  the  place  of  occurrence  by  PW- 
179. 

Bag  containing  two  cells  and  other 
articles 

The  bag  containing  the  burnt  uniform 
of  National  Security  Guards. 

Parcel  containing  the  lense  (Glass) 
with  a  mark  of  Rayban  gogals. 

Parcel  containing  the  pieces  of  wall 
clock . 

Parcel  containing  the  pieces  of  iron 
and  one  red  &  blue  cloth. 


206 


EX.P167 


EX.P168 


EX.P169 


EX.P170 


EX.P171 


EX.P172 


EX.P173 


Parcel  containing  the  burnt  pieces 
of  coal. 


The  bag  containing  burnt  pieces  of 
the  uniform  of  Haryana  Police. 


The  bag  containing  ashes  collected 
from  the  spot  of  blast. 


The  bag  containing  burnt  pieces  of 
clothes . 


Bag  containing  broken  frame  of 
spectacles . 


The  Bag  containing  one  iron  piece 
along  with  pieces  of  clothes. 


The  bag  containing  burnt  plastic 
pieces . 


The  bag  containing  burnt  material 


207 


The  bag  containing  pieces  of  metal. 


The  bag  containing  burnt  pieces  of 
metal  pieces. 

The  bag  containing  burnt  pieces  of 
cloth . 

The  bag  containing  cap  of  Khaki 
colour  with  badge. 

The  bag  containing  a  burnt  piece  of 
plastic . 

The  bag  containing  burnt  pieces  of 
cloth . 

The  bag  containing  one  soap. 

The  bag  containing  broken  pieces  of 
the  glass  of  spectacles. 


208 


EX.P183 


EX.P184 


EX.P185 


EX.P186  to 
EX.P188 


EX.P189 


EX.P190 


Ex. PI 91  to 
EX.P195 


The  bag  containing  one  empty  sell  of 
battery  along  with  two  pieces. 

The  bag  containing  one  wrist  watch 
with  broken  glass  with  a  time 
stopped  at  5.12. 


Bag    containing  one 
one       iron  piece 
condition . 


wire    along  with 
in       a  melted 


Three  pieces  of  damaged  car  bearing 
registration  No.  PB-08-3469. 

Number  plate  along  with  the  tail 
light  of  car  bearing  no . PB-08-3469 . 

Plastic  container  containing  blood 
sample  collected  from  the  scene  of 
occurrence  collectively  exhibited  as 
Ex. P190 . 

Sweepings    five    in    numbers  obtained 


209 


from  the  outer  portion  of  Car  no.PB- 
08-3469. 


EX.P196 


Identity  card  of  deceased  ASI 
Mukhtiar  Singh. 


EX.P197  : 

One  blood  stained  copy  containing 
the  emblem  of  Haryana  Police. 

Ex. PI 98 -A 

to  EX.P199-B  : 

Pieces  of  Car  no.  PB-08-3469 


EX.P199 


A  blood  soaked  pieces  of  cloth 
recovered  from  the  scene  of  the 
occurrence  collectively  sealed  in 
one  bundle. 


Ex.P200 


One  blood  stained  white  printed 
shirt . 


Ex.P201 

One  khaki  blood  stained  turban. 

Ex.P202/l 
to  Ex.P202/6 

Three  live  cartridges  of  different 
bores  along  with  the  bullets  heads. 


210 


Ex.P203/l 
to  Ex.P203/6 

One  khaki  turban,  one  light  blue 
turban,  one  pink  and  one  white 
turban  taken  from  the  scene  of 
occurrence . 


EX.P204 


Bunch  of  keys  recovered  from  Car  No 
DBA-9598 . 


Ex.P205 

Identity  card  of  deceased  Dhanwant 
Singh  recovered  during  the 

postmortem  examination. 


Ex.P206 

Identity  card  of  deceased  Kesar 
recovered  during  the  postmortem 
examination . 


EX.P207 

Identity  card  of  Mukhtiar  Singh 
deceased  recovered      during  the 

postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P208 

Identity  card  of  deceased  Balbir 
Singh,  MLA  recovered  during  the 
postmortem  examination. 


211 


Ex.P209 


Belongings  of  deceased  Kultar  Singh 
son  of  Shaki  Singh  handed  over  at 
the  time  of  post  mortem  examination. 


Ex.P210 

Voter  identity  metallic  pellets 
recovered  from  the  dead  body  of 
Swaran  Singh  son  of  Hajura  Singh 
during  the  postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P211  : 

Packet  containing  personal 

belongings  recovered  from  the  dead 
body  of  Swaran  Singh      s/o  Hazura 
Singh         during         the  postmortem 
examination . 

Ex.P212  : 

Packet  Containing  metallic  and  glass 
pieces  recovered  from  the  dead  body 
of  Yash  Pal  Bali  s/o  Hari  Ram  during 
the  postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P213 

Packet  containing  clothes  recovered 
from  the  dead  body  of  deceased  Yash 
Pal  Bali  during  the  postmortem 
examination . 


212 


EX.P214 


Packet  containing  personal 

belongings     like     shoes, pant,  kachha 
(under-wear ) etc    of    deceased  Ranjodh 
Singh         during         his  postmortem 
examination . 

EX.P215 

Packet         containing  personal 
belongings  recovered  from  the  dead 
body  of  deceased     Jagdish     s/o  Teja 
during  his  postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P216 

Packet  containing  the  personal 
belongings  of  deceased  Lachman  Dass 
s/o  Ram  Lai  recovered  during  the 
postmortem  examination. 

EX.P217 

Packet  containing  the  personal 
belongings  recovered  from  the  dead 
body     of     deceased  Balbir  Singh 

during  the        postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P218 

Packet  containing  personal 

belongings  recovered  from  the  dead 
body     of  deceased  shamsher  Singh 


213 


during  the  postmortem  examination. 

Ex.P219 

Packet  containing  glass  and  foreign 
material  recovered  from  the  dead 
body  of  Mukhtiar  Singh  s/o  Pal 
Singh . 

57.  In      addition      to      the      above  discussed 

evidence  of  the  prosecution,  during  the  defence 
evidence,  the  prosecution  has  also  relied  upon  the 
following  documents  which  were  put  to  the  defence 
witnesses . 

Ex.PX/1  : 

Copy  of  the  Memo  of  recovery  dated 
18.  9.1995. 

Ex.PX/2  : 

Containing  29  pages,  copies  of  the 
malkhana  register  of  Police  Station, 
CBI  of  New  Delhi. 

Ex.PX/3  : 

Cutting  of  the  News  paper  The 
Tribune  dt. 27. 9.1995  relating  to 
the  case. 

EX.PX3-A  & 
Ex.PX/4  : 


214 


Cuttings  of  the  news  items  of  the 
Hindustan  Times  dated  17.9.1995 
relating  to  the  case  in  hand. 

Ex.PX/5  to 
Ex.PX/9  : 

Cutting  of  the  news  paper  The  Indian 
Express  dt. 7. 9. 1995,  8.9.1995  and 
9.9.1995. 


STATEMENTS  OF  ALL  THE  ACCUSED  UNDER  SECTION 
313    Cr.P.C.   ALONGWITH     THEIR  EXPLIANATION 
AND    DEFENCE  VERSION. 

58.  After  conclusion  of  the  evidence  of  the 
prosecution,  all  the  accused  persons  facing  trial 
in  this  case,  were  examined  under  Section  313 
Cr.P.C  one  by  one,  and  each  and  every  incriminating 
circumstances,  brought  by  the  prosecution,  against 
each  and  every  accused  persons,  were  put  to  each 
of  the  accused  persons  separately,  as  the  entire 
case  of  the  prosecution  is  based  on  the  theory  that 
as  per  a  well  laid  conspiracy,  all  the  accused 
person  committed  this  crime. 

59.  First    of    all,    accused    Balwant    Singh  was 
examined    u/s    313    Cr.P.C    and    when    each    and  every 
circumstance      of     prosecution     was     put      to  him, 
starting    with    the    factum    of    conspiracy    till  its 
execution    including    the    role    played    by    each  and 


215 


every  co-accused  of  this  accused,  he  pleaded 
ignorance  about  some  facts  and  admitted  some  facts 
and  ultimately,  he  was  called  upon  to  explain  that 
in  view  of  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution,  he 
along  with  his  co  accused  persons  including  the 
persons  declared  as  proclaimed  offender,  hatched 
conspiracy  to  kill  Sardar  Beant  Singh,  then  Chief 
Minister  of  Punjab 

60.  In  pursuance  of  that,  deceased  assassin, 
Dilawar  Singh  acted  as  human  bomb  and  exploded 
himself  near  the  Car  of  the  Chief  Minister  on 
31.8.1995  at  about  5.10  p.m,  at  the  Porch  of  VIP 
Gate  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat, 
Chandigarh  leading  to  death  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh 
along  with  16  other  persons  and  left  a  number  of 
persons  as  injured.  In  reply  to  this,  he  submitted 
a  written  explanation  which  is  exhibited  as 
Ex.D(BS)/A  running  into  four  pages.  He  also  stated 
that  he  strapped  a  belt  bomb  around  the  waist  of 
deceased  Bhai  Dilawar  Singh  and  killed  Beant  Singh 
and  held  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  to  achieve  his  goal 
and  he  did  so  for  the  cause  of  independence  of  his 
brotherhood  as  Beant  Singh  was  killer  of  thousands 
of  innocent  Sikhs  and  starting  claiming  himself  to 
be  incarnation  of  Guru  Gobind  Singh  and  also 
proclaimed  himself     Avtar  of  Lord  Rama. 

61.  Even  in  his  written  explanation 
Ex.D(BS)/A,    he    reiterated    the    above    facts  saying 


216 


that  when  the  Sikh  community  started  'Dharam  Yudh 
Morcha'  on  the  direction  of  Shri  Akal  Takht  Sahib 
through  political  and  religious  organization,  it 
was  not  liked  and  tolerated  by  the  Congress  Govt  at 
the  Centre  and  in  the  month  of  June,  1994,  the 
Central  Govt  attacked  Shri  Harmandir  Sahib  and  Shri 
Akal  Takht  Sahib  and  damaged  the  building  and 
killed  so  many  innocent  persons  and  played  with  the 
religious  feelings  of  Sikh  community.  To  take  the 
revenge  two  Sikh  youngmen  killed  Smt. Indira  Gandhi, 
then  Prime  Minister  of  India  and  after  her  death, 
the  Congress  led  Indian  Govt  indulged  in  hallow 
caste  in  Delhi  and  other  places  in  the  country  and 
again  innocent  Sikh  persons  were  killed  in 
thousands  but  no  action  was  taken  against  any  of 
the  guilty.  After  that,  the  Congress  Govt  gave  a 
free  hand  to  its  agencies  and  the  Police  in  Punjab 
and  S.Beant  Singh  was  made  Chief  Minister  of  Punjab 
against  democratic  procedure  by  bogus  voting. 
S.Beant  Singh,  Chief  Minister  of  Punjab  indulged  in 
killing  innocent  Sikhs  on  the  asking  of  the  Central 
Govt  and  the  dead  bodies  of  so  many  Sikh  persons 
were  cremated  claiming  the  same  to  be  unclaimed. 
After  killing  so  many  innocent  persons,  Sardar 
Beant  Singh  started  claiming  himself  as  the 
messenger  of  peace  and  incarnation  of  Guru  Gobind 
Singh  and  also  proclaimed  himself  Avtar  of  Lord 
Rama.  When  all  this  crossed  the  limit  and  was  not 
tolerated  by  them,  they  planned  to  kill  Beant 
Singh . 


217 


62.  He  further  proclaimed  that  on  31.8.1995, 
deceased  Bhai  Dilawar  Singh  wrapped  a  bomb  on  his 
waist  and  collided  with  Beant  Singh  and  killed  him. 
He  further  explained  that  he  was  also  involved  in 
the  killing  of  Beant  Singh  by  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  and  he  has  no  remorse  for  doing  this. 
However,  as  far  as  the  remaining  persons  implicated 
by  the  CBI,  they  have  no  role  and  have  been  falsely 
implicated.  With  this  explanation,  he  alleged  that 
he  does  not  believe  in  the  Constitution  of  India 
and  the  system. 

63.  Even  on  18.3.2006,  when  the  recording  of 
statement  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  was  started  and 
when  first  question  was  put  to  him,  he  read  out  a 
four  pages  writing  which  has  been  marked  as  A-l  to 
A- 4  and  made  part  of  the  record.  It  was  later 
on  exhibited  as  Ex.D(BS)/A. 

64.  Even  prior  to  that  on  24.12.97  and 
24.1.1998,  accused  Balwant  Singh  filed  a  written 
application  admitting  the  facts,  mentioned  above. 
Even  during  the  recording  of  the  statement  of  the 
witnesses,  Raju  Tamir  Haran  (PW  60)  one  of  the 
witnesses,  during  his  cross  examination,  he  again 
gave  a  writing  Ex. CD/1  admitting  the  killing  of 
Sardar  Beant  Singh. 

65.  Not    even    this,    when    PW-95,    Tejinder  Singh, 


218 


with  whom  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  stayed  at 
Nagpur  and  before  whom,  he  disclosed  all  the 
details  leading  to  this  conspiracy,  stated  so  on 
oath  accused  Balwant  Singh  while  cross  examining 
him  alleged  that  whatever  has  been  stated  by  this 
witness  is  correct  except  gua  accused  Gurmit  Singh. 
This  stand  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  further  shows 
that  he  has  confessed  the  killing  of  Beant  singh 
almost  the  manner  alleged  by  prosecution. 

66.  Even  during  the  course  of  arguments,  he 
submitted  a  writing,  which  was  made  part  of  record 
on  20.4.2007,   taking  the  same  stand. 

67.  Similarly,  when  all  the  remaining  accused 
persons  were  examined  one  by  one,  and  each  and 
every  piece  of  incriminating  evidence  was  put  to 
them  and  they  were  also  confronted  with  the  crux  of 
the  evidence  and  their  link,  with  this 
assassination,  all  of  them  denied  the  entire  case 
of  the  prosecution  and  alleged  that  they  have  been 
falsely  implicated  by  the  Central  Bureau 
Investigation . 

68.  When  the  statement  of  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  was  completed  u/s  313  Cr.P.C,  he  was  called 
upon  to  explain  the  reasons  and  circumstances,  in 
which,  he  was  arrested  and  link  with  this  case,  he 
replied  that  he  is  innocent  and  has  been  falsely 
implicated    only    because    of    the    fact    that    he  is 


219 


neighbour  of  Dilawar  Singh  and  he  was  arrested  by 
the  CBI  and  forced  to  become  a  witness  but  when  he 
refused  to  oblige  the  CBI,  he  was  falsely 
implicated  in  this  case.  He  also  give  his 
explanation  in  writing  Ex.D(GS)  in  which  also 
he  reiterated  this  fact  and  alleged  that  he  has 
been  falsely  implicated. 

69.  In  the   same  manner,    when   statement  of  the 

accused  Navjot  Singh  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C  was 
completed  and  he  was  called  upon  to  explain,  why  he 
has  been  arrested  and  link  with  this  case,  he 
replied  that  he  is  innocent  and  falsely  implicated. 
On  17.9.1995,  at  about  8.00  p.m,  the  raiding  party 
of  the  Punjab  Police  and  the  CBI  forcibly  entered 
into  his  house  and  they  forcibly  took  away  him  and 
his  father  including  his  grand  father  and  they  also 
took  away  cash,  gold  ornaments  and  other  valuable 
from  his  house  after  keeping  them  in  illegal 
custody.  He  was  falsely  implicated  in  a  sedition 
case  in  Delhi  and  was  later  on  implicated  in  this 
case  on  the  asking  of  their  neighbour,  Harjinder 
Singh  Gill,  with  whom  his  family  is  having  a 
dispute  about  the  payment  of  cost  of  the  common 
wall.  With  these  facts,  he  alleged  that  on 
31.8.1995,  he  was  present  on  his  duties  at  Ranbaxy 
till  18:48  hours  as  is  clear  from  Ex.PEEEEE  and  has 
been  falsely  implicated  in  this  case  without  there 
being  any  act  of  omission  and  commission  on  his 
part . 


220 


70.  In  the  same  manner,  when  statement  of  the 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C 
was  completed,  he  explained  that  he  is  falsely 
implicated  and  in  his  written  explanation  in 
Punjabi  in  this  regard,  which  is  Ex.D-SS,  he 
alleged  that  he  was  arrested  on  29.9.1995,  and  was 
tortured  by  the  Punjab  Police  and  the  CBI  and  was 
forced  to  make  disclosure  statement  before  a 
Magistrate  at  Delhi  admitting  his  involvement  but 
he  never  made  any  disclosure  statement  before  the 
Magistrate  and  his  statement  recorded  in  Hindi  was 
never  read  over  or  explained  to  him  as  he  does  not 
know  Hindi  or  write  Hindi.  He  further  alleged  that 
he  is  not  a  resident  of  Ukasi  Jattan.  On  the  other 
hand  he  is  resident  of  Village  Kamalpur.  With  this 
explanation,  he  also  pleaded  that  he  has  been 
falsely  implicated. 

71.  In  the  same  manner,  when  statement  of  the 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  under  Section  313 
Cr.P.C  was  completed,  and  he  alleged  that  he  is 
innocent  and  falsely  implicated  and  as  per  his 
written  explanation  in  this  regard  Ex.D(JSH  ),  he 
justified  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh  but  alleged 
that  he  has  no  concern  with  his  killing  and  has 
been  falsely  implicated.  He  again  alleged  that  he 
is  not  member  of  any  Terrorist  Organization.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  is  member  of  religious  organization 
known  as  Akhand  Kirtani   Jatha  which  is  working  for 


221 


perpetuating  teaching 
alleged    that    he  has 
accused  persons  facing 


of   Sikh   religion.  He 
no    concern    with  any- 
trial  in  this  case. 


further 
of  the 


72.  In   the    same   manner   when   statement   of  the 

accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C 
was  completed,  he  alleged  that  he  has  been  falsely 
implicated  and  he  further  alleged  that  before 
31.8.1995,  he  was  working  as  driver  with  Sant  Ram 
Singla,  a  Member  of  Parliament  and  after  making  a 
formal  entry  in  the  Daily  Diary  Register  kept  in 
his  deptt  i.e  Security  Wing,  he  went  to  Delhi  with 
Sant  Ram  Singla.  On  1.9.1995,  he  came  to  Chandigarh 
to  get  his  salary  and  received  the  same  from  Mini 
Secretariat  but  after  that,  he  was  arrested  by  the 
Police  and  falsely  implicated  in  this  case.  He 
further  alleged  that  at  the  time  of  alleged 
occurrence  of  paint  of  car  and  other  facts  alleged 
against  him  and  when  this  blast  took  place  he  was 
with  Sant  Ram  Singla,  Member  of  Parliament  at  Delhi 
but  despite  this,  he  has  been  implicated  falsely 
being  a  neighbourer  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh.  He 
further  alleged  that  the  police  has  tried  to 
manipulate  his  finger  prints  on  the  rear  view 
mirror  of  the  alleged  car  and  as  such,  he  is 
falsely  implicated.  He  further  alleged  that  he  was 
not  knowing  any  of  the  accused  persons  before 
coming  to  Jail.  With  these  averments,  he  reiterated 
that  he  has  been  falsely  implicated  in  this  case. 


222 


73.  In  the  same  manner,  when  statement  of  the 
accused  Nasib  Singh  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C 
was  completed,  he  alleged  that  he  is  innocent  and 
falsely  implicated  in  this  case  and  further 
explained  that  his  daughter,  Harpreet  Kaur  was 
being  falsely  implicated  by  the  CBI  on  the 
allegations  that  she  is  conspirator  in  this  case. 
However,  under  the  pressure  of  Panchayat  and  the 
respectables  of  the  Village,  the  CBI  could  not  do 
so  and  he  was  arrested  by  the  Punjab  Police  and 
implicated  falsely  in  this  case.  He  also  alleged 
that  he  was  not  knowing  any  of  the  accused  of  this 
trial  till  the  time  of  his  arrest.  The  RDX  has  been 
planted  on  him  whereas  no  recovery  was  made  from 
his  house  and  as  such,  he  alleged  that  he  has  been 
falsely  implicated  in  this  case. 

74.  It  will  also  be  apposite  to  mention  here 
that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  @  Tara  was  also  facing 
trial  along  with  present  accused  persons  and  till 
the  year  2004,  the  prosecution  witnesses  were 
examined  in  his  presence  including  the  making  of 
confession  statement,  Ex.PW86/6  recorded  by  PW-86, 
Balbir  Singh,  then  Special  Judicial  Magistrate,  CBI 
Patiala  and  during  the  pendency  of  the  trial 
against  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  he  filed  an  application 
on  6.5.1999,  wherein  he  retracted  from  his 
confessional  statement  recorded  by  PW-86  but  he 
further  alleged  that  as  disclosed  by  him,  earlier 
he    was    also    with    deceased    Dilawar    Singh    to  kill 


223 


Beant  Singh.  Similarly,  even  prior  to  2.9.1998,  he 
admitted  that  he  was  present  with  Dilawar  Singh 
while  killing  Beant  Singh  and  he  has  no  remorse  for 
the  same. 

75.  Although,    on    completion    of    statements  of 

all  the  accused  persons  under  Section  313  of  the 
Cr.P.C,  accused  Balwant  Singh  had  not  opted  for 
any  defence,  all  the  remaining  accused  persons 
opted  for  defence  evidence  and  in  order  to  prove 
their  defence  stories,  they  examined  as  many  as  26 
following  witnesses :- 

DW-1,  Pankaj  Sharma,  Junior  Clerk  who 
has  brought  the  original  News  Paper  The 
Tribune  for  the  dates  1.9.1995,  3.9.1995, 
28.1.1996,  21.2.1996,  27.4.2003 

regarding  the  news  of  assassination  of 
Sardar  Beant  Singh  and  he  deposed 
accordingly . 

DW-2 ,  Prabhjot  Paul  Singh, Bureau 
Chief  in  The  Tribune,  Chandigarh  who  has 
deposed  that  the  news,  Ex.DWl/3  was 
published  after  his  reporting  and  story 
which  was  prepared  by  him  after  talking 
to  the  concerned  persons  and  authorities. 

DW-3,  R.S.Bajwa  (retd  Lt.Col)  is  the 
neighbour      of      Tirlok      Singh      father  of 


224 


accused  Navjot  Singh,  who  has  deposed 
that  there  was  dispute  between  Mr. Gill 
and  Tirlok  Singh  regarding  payment  for 
the  cost  of  the  common  wall  of  the  house 
of  Tirlok  Singh.  This  witness  has  further 
deposed  that  on  17.9.1995,  at  about 
7/8.00  p.m.,  when  he  was  present  in  the 
lawn  of  his  house,  at  that  time,  60-70 
persons  had  come  in  front  of  house  of 
Tirlok  Singh  and  took  away  Tirlok  Singh, 
his  wife,  his  son  and  his  father  and 
brother  leaving  behind  only  his  daughter. 

DW-4 ,  Mohkam   Singh      has  deposed 

that  when  he  was  in  judicial  lock  up, 
accused  Navjot  Singh  met  him  in  the 
judicial  lock-up  at  Delhi  for  three 
occasions.  He  was  brought  by  two  police 
officials  as  he  was  unable  to  walk 
himself  with  swollen  eyes.  This  witness 
further  deposed  that  accused  Navjot  Singh 
disclosed  him  that  the  police  has 
implicated  him  in  a  criminal  case  of 
Delhi  for  pressurizing  him  to  become  a 
witness  relating  to  assassination  of 
Beant  Singh.  This  witness  further  stated 
that  on  this  he  said  to  accused  Navjot 
Singh  if  he  knows  anything  about  the  case 
then  he  must  become  a  witness.  On  this, 
accused  Navjot   Singh   stated   that   he  does 


225 


not  know 
assassination 
for  the  same. 


anything  about  that 
or    the    person  responsible 


DW-5,  Tirlok  Singh,  father  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh,  deposed  that  his 
son  Navjot  Singh  has  been  falsely 
implicated  by  the  CBI  on  the  asking  of 
their  neighbour  H.S.Gill,  who  was  having 
enmity  with  them  and  he  also  deposed 
about  the  complaints  and  the 
representations  made  by  him  after 
registration  of  case  against  his  son. 

DW-6,         Dr. Daisy      Sahini,       who  is 

working  as  Additional  Professor,  Deptt  of 
Anatomy,  P.G.I  Chandigarh  deposed  that  no 
register  regarding  examination  of  medical 
legal  work  was  being  maintained  in  their 
deptt . 

DW-7,  Dr .R.M.Singh,  SMO  General 
Hospital,  Sector  26  Chandigarh  was 
summoned  by  the  defence  in  order  to  show 
that  separate  mortuary  register  is  being 
maintained  in  the  General  Hospital.  This 
witness  accordingly  deposed  that  he  has 
brought  the  mortuary  register  for  the 
relevant  period  in  this  case  which  is 
Ex.D7     and    further    deposed    that    as  and 


226 


when  a  dead  body  is  brought  in  the 
mortuary  for  post  mortem  examination,  the 
particulars  of  the  same  are  entered  in 
this  register  for  conducting  the  post 
mortem  examination  and  apart  from  this, 
no  other  register  is  being  maintained  for 
receiving  the  dead  bodies  in  the 
mortuary . 


DW-8,         Sunil        Arora,  Assistant 
Registrar,  National       Human  Rights 

Commission,  New  Delhi  has  brought  the 
concerned  file  relating  to  the  complaints 
filed  by  Tirlok  Singh  Chhabra  which  was 
registered  in  their  office  as  file 
no . 27/7/95-LD  and  this  witness  deposed 
accordingly . 


DW-9,  Prahlad  Singh,  Malkhana 
Incharge  of  Anti  Corruption  Burearu 
(CBI),  Chandigarh  was  examined  to  prove 
the  entries  of  case  property  of  this  case 
in  the  said  register.  This  witness 
accordingly  deposed  that  all  the  seizures 
and  case  property  relating  to  all  the 
case  which  are  tried  by  the  CBI, 
Chandigarh  including  the  cases  relating 
to  SIU-XV  Chandigarh  are  entered  and  kept 
at  Chandigarh.  However,  if  the  case 
property    of    any    other    branch    is    kept  at 


227 


Chandigarh  temporarily,  no  entry  of  the 
same  is  being  made  in  the  said  register. 
He  also  deposed  that  the  case  relating  to 
Beant  Singh  assassination  was 

investigated  by  the  Delhi  Branch  and  as 
such,  no  entry  regarding  depositing  or 
despatch  of  any  case  property  relating  to 
this  case  has  been  entered.  In  cross 
examination,  he  admitted  that  as  per  his 
information,  the  case  property  relating 
to  this  case  was  temporarily  deposited  in 
malkhana  at  Chandigarh  along  with  the 
seizure  memos. 

DW-10,  M.S.Kalania,  Under  Secretary, 
Ministry  of  Home  Affairs, New  Delhi  was 
summoned  with  some  record  but  he  moved  an 
application  claiming  privilege  of  that 
record  and  that  application  of  the  Home 
Ministry  was  allowed  and  this  witness  was 
discharge  accordingly. 

DW-11,  Pankaj  Kalra,  Cashier,  CBI 
Head  Office, New  Delhi  who  has  brought  the 
summoned  record  i.e  the  original  record 
relating  to  the  tour  programme  of  Shri 
M.L.Sharma,  then  Joint  Director  along 
with  TA  bills  from  the  period  of  1.9.1995 
to  31.12.1995  and  this  witness  deposed 
accordingly . 


228 


DW-12,  S.K.Singh,  who  is  posted  as 
S . P (Security) ,  Punjab  Sector  9, 

Chandigarh  has  brought  the  summoned 
record  i.e  the  daily  diary  register  for 
the  month  of  April,  1995  to  1.9.1995. 
This  witness  further  deposed  that 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  who  was  driver  in  the 
MT  department,  proceeded  on  leave  for  two 
days,  vide  DDR  No. 24  dt. 11. 4. 1995  at  7.40 
a.m  and  on  11.7.1995,  C. Lakhwinder  Singh 
No. 409  was  deputed  to  report  to  Shri 
Surinder  Singla,  then  Member  of 
Parliament  as  driver  and  this  witness 
further  deposed  accordingly. 

DW-13,  S.K.Jain,  Assistant,  who  has 
been  authorized  by  the  Presidents 
Secretariat  to  depose  in  this  case  and 
this  witness  further  deposed  that  they 
have  destroyed  all  the  records  after  five 
years  of  its  receipts  or  maintenance. 

DW-14,  S.R.Thakur,  Inspector,  CBI  who 
has  brought  the  summoned  record  i.e 
receipts  register  maintained  in  CJO 
Complex  and  North  Block  for  the  period  of 
4.1.1996  to  9.12.1996.  This  witness 
further  deposed  that  as  per  the  record  no 
complaint       of       Tirlok       Singh  Chhabra 


229 


resident  of  SAS  Nagar,  was  received 
either  in  the  month  of  April,  1996  or  in 
the  month  of  July,   August,  1996. 

DW-15,  B. A. Khan,  Deputy  Secretary, 
who  has  deposed  that  he  has  not  brought 
the  summoned  record  of  file 

No.S/23/33/35/OONCM  dt. 16. 6.2000  as  the 
same  has  been  weeded  out  and  he  deposed 
accordingly . 

DW-16,    Gurjit    Singh,     Clerk    who  has 
brought    the    news    paper    dated  21.2.1996, 
which      was      published      by      Sadhu  Singh 
Hamdard    Trust    Jalandhar    and    he  deposed 
accordingly . 

DW-17,  Paramjit  Kaur,  w/o  late 
Jaswant  Singh  Khalra  and  she  deposed  that 
her  husband  late  Shri  Jaswant  Singh 
Khalra  was  the  General  Secretary  of  Human 
Rights  Wing  of  Siromani  Akali  Dal  and  he 
used  to  raise  voice  as  &  when  any  human 
rights  violation  were  done  either  by  the 
Govt  or  its  instrumentalities.  Even  after 
the  incident  of  1984  in  the  Golden 
Temple,  her  husband  agitated  the 
discrimination  being  purported  against 
the  Sikh  community.  In  the  year  1992, 
when    deceased    Beant    Singh    became  Chief 


230 


Minister  of  Punjab, he  also  started 
working  against  the  Sikh  Community  and 
did  lot  of  atrocities  towards  the  Sikh 
community  including  fake  encounters  and 
at  that  time,  her  husband  also  raised 
voice  against  the  atrocities  of  Beant 
Singh  and  prepared  a  report  regarding 
illegal  killings  of  Sikhs  during  his 
tenure  and  having  been  cremated  them  as 
unclaimed  bodies  at  different  places  in 
Punjab  and  in  this  manner,  she  tried  to 
project  that  deceased  Beant  Singh  was  not 
working  for  the  Sikh  community  and  she 
and  her  husband  were  harassed  by  Beant 
Singh  and  after  the  death  of  Beant  Singh, 
the  atrocities  of  Sikh  community 
including  false  encounters  and  other 
atrocities  were  stopped  and  came  to  an 
end  to  a  large  extent. 

DW-18,  Harish  Chander  Lower  Division 
Clerk  of  Record  Room  office  of  the 
CBI,New  Delhi  was  summoned  with  receipt 
and  dispatch  register  for  the  period 
1.8.1995  to  31.3.1996  of  the  office  of 
the  CBI-SCR/II,New  Delhi  but  he  deposed 
that  this  record  has  been  destroyed  as 
per  the  certificate,  Ex.DW18/B. 

DW-19,     Hira  Singh,    Inspector  CBI  was 


231 


summoned  with  the  record  of  malkhana  of 
the  CBI  and  he  accordingly  deposed  about 
the  depositing  of  the  case  property 
relating  to  this  case  in  his  malkhana  as 
per  the  different  entries. 

DW-20,  P.K.Ghosh,  being  a  member  of 
the  Executing  committee  of  Sahirdaya 
Group  Society,  Rohtak  Road,  Delhi  was 
summoned  with  the  visiting  register 
maintained  by  the  society  for  the  period 
August  and  September,  1995.  But  he 
deposed  that  no  such  register  was  being 
maintained  at  the  relevant  time. 

DW-21,  Joginder  Singh,  Editor  of  the 
Spokesman  a  monthly  Punjabi  Magazine 
deposed  about  the  publishing  of  some 
reports  in  his  Magazine  relating  to  this 
case  and  proved  it  accordingly. 

DW-22,  Sanjay  Mehta,  Personal 
Executive,  Hindustan  Times  was  summoned 
to  prove  the  copies  of  the  news  paper 
dt. 2. 9. 1995  and  he  accordingly  proved  the 
copyof  the  News  paper  as  Ex.DW22/D. 

DW-23,  Bipan  Pabbi,  Resident  Editor 
of  Indian  Express,  Chandigarh  was  also 
summoned     to     prove     the     copies     of  the 


232 


Indian    News    Paper    from    1st    September  to 

5th    September    and    dated    8.2.1996    and  he 

accordingly  proved  these  copies  as 
EX.DW23/A  to  EX.DW23/C. 

DW-24,  Shri  D . B . S . Shastri,  Section 
Officer  of  Central  for  Cellular  or 
Molecular  Biology  was  summoned  to  bring 
the  receipt  and  despatch  register  which 
was  being  maintained  in  DNA  testing 
Laboratory  during  the  period  September, 
1995  but  he  deposed  that  no 
despatch/receipt  register  was  being 
maintained  in  DNA  testing  Laboratory 
during  the  period  in  guestion. 

DW-25,  Ashok  Kumar  Walia,  Inspector, 
Food  &  Supply,  Rajpura  was  summoned  to 
bring  the  record  of  the  year  1994 
relating  to  the  ration  card  issued  in  the 
name  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  but  he 
deposed  that  the  record  of  1994  has  been 
destroyed  but  proved  the  original  ration 
card  Ex.DW25/A  being  issued  after  proper 
verification  containing  the  true 
particulars . 

DW26,  HC  Gurmail  Singh,  complaint 
Clerk  of  SSP  Ropar  brought  the  receipt 
register    of    SSP    Ropar    with    effect  from 


233 


1.5.1995  onwards  and  deposed  that  no 
application  or  complaint  has  been 
received  in  SSP  Office  from  Tarlok  Singh, 
resident  of  house  no. 889,  Sector  60, 
Mohali . 

76.  In    addition    to    the    defence    evidence  led 

above,  the  accused  persons  also  relied  upon  the 
following  documents,  which  were  put  to  the 
prosecution  witnesses  during  their  statement  at 
different  times. 

Ex.D-1  Copy  of  the  application  moved  by  SI 

Gamdoor  Singh  for  the  postmortem  of 
two  legs  and  head  skull. 

Ex.D-2  Identification   report-cum-memo  dated 

5.9.1995  prepared  by  Inspector 
A.K.Chanda  for  the  identification  of 
two  legs  and  the  skull  by  Harnek 
Singh  &  Chamkaur  Singh,    father  and 
brother  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh 
which  was  later  on  exhibited  as 

Ex.DW99/l . 

Ex.D-3  Report  of  Doctor  Pardeep  Sharma 

relating  to  the  examination  of 
Varinder  Rana . 

Ex.D-4  Original  application  moved  by 


234 


Bhupinder  Singh,    SP,   CBI  for  the 
release  of  two  legs  and  the  skull  to 
Harnek  Singh  father  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh. 

Ex.D-5  Original  application  moved  by  ML 

Sharma,      Joint  Director  of  CBI  with 
Director,    P.G.I  Chandigarh  for  the 
report  as  to  the     two  legs  and  skull 
and  other  articles. 

Ex.D-6  List  of  MLRs  relating  to  the  injured 

of  the  bomb  blast. 

Ex.D-7  Postmortem  register  of  P.G.I 

Chandigarh . 

Ex.D-8  Copies     of  the  DDRs 

EX.D8/A  & 

EX.D8/B 

Ex.D-9  Original  affidavit  of  Harjit  Singh, 

s/o  Bhagwan  Singh  which  is  also 
exhibited  as  Ex.PW241/4 

77.  In      addition      to      the      above  mentioned 

documentary  evidence,  accused  Navjot  Singh  also 
relied  upon  the  following  additional  documents  : 

Ex.DX/1  Certified  copy  of  judgment 

dated  17.5.2002  of  Shri  C.L.Mohal, 
then  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, 


235 


Chandigarh . 


Ex.DX/2  Certified  copy  of  order 

dated  8.5.1995. 

Ex.DX/3  Certified  copy  of  order  of  Shri 

Baldev  Singh,  Additional  Sessions 
Judge, Chandigarh  dated  29.5.1995  . 

Ex.DX/4  Certified  copy  of  writ  petition 

no. 1032/1995   filed  by  accused  Navjot 
Singh . 

Ex.DX/5  Certified  copy  of  order  dated 

16.10.1995  passed  in  criminal  writ 
petition  no. 1032/95. 

Ex.DX/6  Certified  copy  of  order  dated 

5.4.2002  passed  by  Hon'ble  High  Court 
in  Criminal  Misc .No . 7489-M  of  2002 

Ex.DX/7  Copy  of  order  dated  10.2.2000 

passed  by  Punjab  State,    Human  Rights 
Commission . 

Ex.DX/8  Certified  copy  of  order  dated 

17.12.2002  passed  by  the  Human 
Rights  Commission. 

Ex.DH  Copy  of  the  statement  of  Shri  Rajesh 


236 


Malhotra  s/o  Bhagwan  Dass  recorded 
by  AG  Kaul,    Inspector,   CBI . 

Ex.PW237/D        Copy  of  statement  of  C.Kuljit  Singh 
recorded  by  A.K.Ohri,  Inspector, 
CBI . 

Ex.DBB  Copy  of  the  statement  of  PW 

Tirlochan  Singh  son  of  Kartar  Singh 
recorded  by  Shri  R.S.Dhankar. 

Ex.DCC  Copy  of  the  statement  of  PW  Subhash 

Kumar  Dutta  recorded  by  G.N.Gupta, 
DSP,  CBI. 

Ex.DY  Copy  of  statement  of  PW  Dilbagh 

Singh  recorded  by  RS .   Dhankar  on 
25.10.1995 

Ex.DZ  Copy  of  the  statement  of  Mohan  Raj 

Shekher  recorded  by  RS. Dhankar,  DSP, 
CBI  on  4.10.1995. 

Ex.DZ/1  Copy  of  the  statement  of  PW  Revathi 

Raj   Shekhar,   recorded  by  RS.Punia, 
DSP  on  4 . 9 .1995 . 

78.  I     have     heard     Shri     S.K.Saxena,  Special 

Public  Prosecutor  for  the  CBI,  assisted  by  Shri 
R.K.Handa     and  Shri  Rajan  Malhotra,    Special  Public 


237 


Prosecutors  for  the  CBI  and  Shri  D.S.  Chimney  and 
Shri  A.S.Chahal  Advocates  for  all  the  accused 
persons,  who  were  also  assisted  by  Shri  R.C.Sharma 
and  Shri  S.S.Bawa  Advocates,  except  accused  Balwant 
Singh  at  length.  I  have  also  heard  the  case  put 
forward  by  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  in  person. 
Besides  this,  the  entire  record  of  the  prosecution 
including  oral  and  documentary  evidence,  was  also 
perused  with  the  assistance  of  both  the  parties. 


PROSECUTION  VERSION 


79.  Opening    its    case,     Sh. S .N. Saxena,  learned 

Special  Public  Prosecutor,  assisted  by  Sh.R.K.Handa 
Special  Public  Prosecutor  and  Sh.Rajan  Malhotra 
Advocate  for  the  CBI  argued  that  keeping  in  view 
the  stand  taken  by  one  of  the  accused  Balwant 
Singh,  it  is  proved  on  the  file  that  on  31.8.1995, 
deceased  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  along  with  accused 
Balwant  Singh  killed  S.Beant  Singh,  then  Chief 
Minister,  Punjab,  when  assassin  Dilawar  Singh, 
being  a  human  bomb  exploded  himself  near  the  car  of 
S.Beant  Singh,  then  Chief  Minister,  Punjab  at  the 
porch  of  the  VIP  Gate  at  the  Punjab  &  Haryana  Civil 
Secretariat,  Chandigarh.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
also  quite  clear  that  this  killing  has  taken  place 
in  consequences  of  a  well  planned  conspiracy, 
therefore,  the  prosecution  was  required  only  to 
prove  how  this  conspiracy  was  hatched  and  how  the 
accused  persons,    put   on   trial    in   this    case,  along 


238 


with  the  accused,  who  have  been  declared  proclaimed 
offenders,  attributed  for  the  due  execution  of  the 
motive  of  the  conspiracy  and  this  fact  is  duly 
established  on  record  in  view  of  the  voluminous 
evidence  on  the  file,  which  is  based  on  a  complete 
chain  of  circumstantial  evidence  indicating  that 
all  the  accused  persons  facing  trial  in  this  case 
were  part  and  parcel  of  the  conspiracy  and  as  such, 
they  are  liable  to  be  convicted  for  the  offence  for 
which  they  have  been  charge  sheeted. 


80.  To    substantiate    their    case,     the  learned 

Special  Public  Prosecutor  submitted  that  in  view  of 
the  testimony  of  PW-100,  Dilbag  Singh  and  keeping 
in  view  the  documents,  Ex.P137  to  P150,  it  is 
proved  on  the  file  that  Babbar  Khalsa 
International,  a  Pakistan  based  terrorist  group, 
headed  by  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh, 
since  proclaimed  offenders,  hatched  this  conspiracy 
to  kill  S.Beant  Singh  in  order  to  achieve  a  goal  of 
severance  of  a  Sikh  State  called  "Khalistan"  out  of 
India,  by  indulging  in  violent  means  and  it  is  also 
proved  on  the  file  that  the  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  has  also  claimed  the  responsibility 
for  the  assassination  of  S.Beant  Singh  through 
various  communications  sent  to  various  newspaper 
agencies . 


81.  It   is   also  proved  on  the   file  that  accused 

Mahal       Singh       and       Wadhawa       Singh  (proclaimed 


239 


offenders)  instigated  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  who  was 
trained  in  Pakistan  and  they  hatched  a  conspiracy 
for  the  killing  of  S.Beant  Singh  and  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  was  sent  to  India  with  an  instigation 
that  S.Beant  Singh,  the  Chief  Minister,  Punjab  had 
usrpted  the  power  after  1992  election  in  the  State 
of  Punjab  and  is  responsible  for  committing 
indiscriminate  atrocities  on  the  innocent  Sikhs  in 
the  State  of  Punjab  and  other  part  of  the  country 
and  as  such,  he  should  be  killed  and  accordingly 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  instigated  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh,  assassin  Dilawar  Singh,  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  and  accused  Balwant  Singh,  who  all  were  good 
friends  and  all  of  them  then  included  the  remaining 
accused  persons  in  the  conspiracy  as  accused 
Paramjit  Singh  facing  trial  separately,  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  (since  proclaimed  offender) , 
accused  Jagroop  Singh  (since  proclaimed  offender) 
and  accused  Navjot  Singh,  who  were  the  members  of 
the  Akhand  Kirtni  Jatha  also  intend  to  kill  S.Beant 
Singh,   Chief  Minister,  Punjab. 

82.  Accordingly  during   the   period   of  November 

1994  to  August  1995,  all  these  accused  persons 
hatched  this  conspiracy  at  various  places  in  India 
and  various  parts  of  Pakistan  and  this  fact  is  duly 
proved  on  the  file  in  view  of  the  testimony  of  PW35 
and  PW-38,  who  both  proved  that  within  hours  of  the 
killing  of  S.Beant  Singh  ex-Chief  Minister,  Punjab, 
fax  messages  mark  AAA,    DDD  and  EEE  were  received  by 


240 


various  newspapers,  copies  of  which  are  AAA/1, 
DDD/1  and  EEE/1  and  in  all  these  documents,  the 
Babbar  Khalsa  International  has  owned  the 
responsibility  for  killing  S.Beant  Singh. 

83.  Not  only  this,  in  one  of  the  document, 
Ex.P-150  which  is  a  poster  published  by  the  Babbar 
Khalsa  International,  assassin  Dilawar  Singh 
deceased  has  been  shown  as  a  martyr,  who  has  killed 
S.Beant  Singh  by  working  as  a  human  bomb  as 
admitted  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  repeatedly  during 
the  trial  as  well  as  in  his  statement  under  section 
313  Cr.PC.  Thus  all  these  facts  and  circumstances 
clearly  show  that  it  is  established  beyond  doubt 
that  it  was  the  Babbar  Khalsa  International,  who 
had  planned  and  conspired  to  kill  S.Beant  Singh  and 
they  did  so  with  the  active  connivance  and  help  of 
all  the  accused  persons,  who  were  facing  trial  in 
this  case. 

84.  He  further  submitted  that  from  the 
evidence  led  by  the  prosecution,  it  is  proved  that 
as  per  the  motivation  of  accused  Wadhawa  Singh, 
(since  proclaimed  offender) ,  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  motivated  some  persons  to  come  forward  to 
act  as  a  human  bomb  for  the  killing  of  S.Beant 
Singh  ex-Chief  Minister,  Punjab  and  as  per  that 
motivation,  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  offered  himself 
for  this  purpose.  In  July  1995,  accused  Jagtar 
Singh    Hawara    contacted   accused    Shamsher    Singh  and 


241 


Paramjit  Singh,  who  in  turn  introduced  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  (since  proclaimed  offender)  to 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  New  Delhi.  Accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  assured  the  availability  of 
arms  and  ammunitions  and  he,  accordingly,  with  the 
help  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  brought  the  RDX 
from  his  village  near  Ajnala  close  to  the  Indo-Pak 
border  in  truck  no.  PB-12-A-7947  and  the  same  was 
kept  in  the  house  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  and 
some  part  of  the  RDX  was  kept  concealed  in  the 
house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  in  Village  Jhingran 
Kalan  and  accused  Nasib  Singh  kept  concealed  the 
RDX  in  his  house  fully  knowing  the  conspiracy. 
Thereafter  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  purchased  a  gray  coloured  Ambassador 
car  no.  DBA-9598,  Ex.P76  from  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  and 
then  with  the  help  of  accused  Paramjit  Singh,  the 
said  car  was  brought  to  Patiala. 

85  Learned         Special         Public  Prosecutor 

Mr.Saxena  further  submitted  that  on  25.8.1995,  a 
meeting  was  held  in  Gurudwara  Dukh  Niwaran,  Patiala 
which  was  attended  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Paramjit  Singh,  Balwant  Singh 
and  assassin  Dilawar  Singh,  where  a  final  plan  to 
kill  S.Beant  Singh  by  human  bomb  was  prepared  and 
thereafter  all  of  them  reached  Village  Jhigran 
Kalan  from  where  some  part  of  the  RDX  was  brought 
from  the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  and  then  all 
the     five     accused    persons     reached    house    no. 981, 


242 


Phase  IV,  Mohali  which  was  of  their  co-accused 
Gurmeet  Singh.  Thereafter  car  no.  DBA-9598  was  got 
painted  in  off-white  colour  to  give  it  a  look  of  an 
official  car.  In  the  meantime,  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  also  joined  them  and  on  the  night  of 
28.8.1995  in  the  room  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  RDX 
was  mixed  with  the  other  materials  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  belt  bomb  and  the  circuit  of  the  belt 
bomb  were  installed  by  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and 
after  taking  the  delivery  of  the  car,  they  decided 
to  explode  S.Beant  Singh  on  30.8.1995. 

86.  On  30.8.1995,  when  they  reached  the  Punjab 
&  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat,  Chandigarh,  it  was 
found  that  S.Beant  Singh  ex-Chief  Minister, 
Punjab  (deceased)  had  already  left  the  office,  as 
a  result  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  (deceased)  and 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  who  had  went  to  Civil 
Secretariat  to  explode  the  bomb,  returned  back  and 
then  they  went  to  the  house  no.  3031/1,  Sector  45, 
Chandigarh,  which  belongs  to  Chamkaur  Singh  brother 
of  deceased  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  and  stayed  there 
for  the  whole  night. 

87.  On  the  next  morning  while  leaving  the 
house  of  Chamkaur  Singh,  accused  assassin  Dilawar 
Singh  told  Chamkaur  Singh  that  they  are  going  to  do 
some  big  and  therefore,  he  (Chamkaur  Singh)  should 
go  away  otherwise  the  police  may  torture  and  kill 
him.    On    31.8.1995,    accused    assassin    Dilawar  Singh 


243 


and  accused  Balwant  Singh  again  started  for  the 
Civil  Secretariat  where  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
Gurmeet  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  joined  them. 
Thereafter  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Balwant 
Singh  went  to  the  Civil  Secretariat  on  a  scooter 
whereas  the  remaining  accused  persons  came  to  the 
house  of  Gurmeet  Singh  in  Phase  IV,  Mohali.  After 
coming  to  know  that  S.Beant  Singh  (deceased)  had 
reached  the  Secretariat,  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
and  Balwant  Singh  reached  house  no. 981,  Phase  IV, 
Mohali  along  with  car  no.  DBA-9598.  After  that, 
assassin  Dilawar  Singh  was  armed  with  the  belt  bomb 
and  he  left  the  house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  in 
car  no.  DBA-9598.  Accused  Balwant  Singh  followed 
them  on  scooter  No.  PB-11-1955. 

88.  After  reaching  the  Secretariat,  they 
parked  the  car  at  some  distance  from  the  VIP  Gate 
of  the  Secretariat  and  accused  Balwant  Singh  also 
reached  there  and  joined  them.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  then  left  that  place.  At  about  5.10  p.m.,  when 
S.Beant  Singh  ex-Chief  Minister,  Punjab  came  down 
and  was  in  the  process  of  occupying  his  car  No.  PB- 
08-3469,  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  (deceased)  reached 
near  him  and  get  him  exploded  resulting  into  a  huge 
blast  as  a  result  of  which  15  other  persons  along 
with  S.Beant  Singh  ex-Chief  Minister,  Punjab  were 
died  and  as  many  as  15  other  persons  were  injured. 

89.  Learned         Public         Prosecutor  further 


244 


submitted  that  immediately  after  the  bomb  blast  the 
Police  reached  at  the  spot  and  Pw-240,  Nanha  Ram, 
then  Inspector,  SHO,  P.S.  North,  inspected  the  spot 
and  found  that  number  of  dead  bodies  were  found 
scattered  all  over  the  place  of  occurrence 
including  the  dead  body  of  Sardar  Beant  Singh  near 
the  back  seat  of  the  Car  bearing  registration  No. 
PB-08-3469  and  there  was  huge  damage  caused  to  the 
furniture,  fixtures  and  the  building  of  the  VIP 
lounge . 

90.  Accordingly,     he    took    the    photographs  of 

the  scene  of  occurrence  with  the  help  of  some 
experts.  On  further  inspection,  he  found  two  legs 
and  a  skull,  which  was  later  on  identified  to  be 
the  remnants  of  the  body  parts  of  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  as  mentioned  above.  Thereafter  further 
investigations  of  the  case  were  taken  over  by  the 
CBI  from  the  Chandigarh  Police.  When  those  two  legs 
and  skull  were  examined  by  PW-6,  Doctor  Inderjit 
Dewan,  he  opined  that  both  these  legs  and  skull 
were  of  the  same  individual  and  they  had  been 
severed  as  a  result  of  the  explosive  device  but  he 
had  advised  for  DNA  test  for  its  identity.  Later  on 
Harnek  Singh,  father  of  assassin  Dilawar  Singh 
(deceased)  ,  identified  the  legs  and  the  skull  as 
that  of  his  son  Dilawar  Singh  (deceased)  but  to 
confirm  the  identity,  the  DNA  test  was  done  by  Pw- 
245,  Lalji  Singh  of  the  Centre  for  Cellular  and 
Molecular  Biology,   Hyderabad  and  it  was  established 


245 


that  the  two  legs  and  the  skull  were  of  the  same 
person  and  that  person  was  deceased  Dilawar  Singh. 

91.  Earlier  when  the  place  of  occurrence  was 
inspected  by  PW-240,  Inspector  Nanha  Ram,  he  found 
an  abandoned  car  bearing  No.  DBA-9598.  Later  on 
this  car  was  searched  by  the  CBI  team  as  well  as  by 
the  finger  print  expert  team.  On  examination  of  the 
car,  a  chit,  Ex.PW60/A  and  a  9  volt  battery, 
Ex.P153  was  recovered.  In  the  meantime,  PW-51, 
Surinder  Kumar  after  seeing  the  photograph  of  car 
No.  DBA-9598  in  the  newspaper  approached  the  police 
and  disclosed  the  police  that  he  had  painted  the 
said  car  on  the  asking  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh. 
Side  by  side,  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh  brother  of 
assassin  Dilawar  Singh  also  contacted  the  police 
and  disclosed  that  his  brother  was  involved  in  this 
killing.  Accordingly  on  5.9.1995  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  was  arrested  along  with  scooter  No.  PCP-2085, 
Ex. P80 . 

92.  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  alias  Maula  also  saw 
the  photograph  of  the  car  and  disclosed  that  the 
said  car  was  got  painted  by  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  from  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma.  On  the  search  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  some  documents  having  his 
handwriting  and  signatures  were  also  recovered.  PW- 
114,  Dalbir  Singh  alias  Maula  also  disclosed  that 
after  this  incident,  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  also 
contacted  him  and  disclosed  that  he   is   involved  in 


246 


the  killing  of  S.Beant  Singh  along  with  other 
accused  persons .  After  taking  the  specimen 
handwriting  and  finger  print  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  when  the  same  were  got  compared  with  the 
disputed  handwriting  on  the  documents  and  the  chit 
recovered  from  the  car,  it  was  found  in  the  hands 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh.  Similarly  the  finger 
prints  taken  from  the  car  also  matched  with  the 
finger  prints  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh. 
Thereafter  on  the  disclosure  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  arrested  on 
5.9.1995  in  the  presence  of  Surinder  Kumar,  PW-51 
and  on  the  personal  search  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  a  slip  containing  the  name  of  Lakhwinder 
Singh  and  the  phone  number,  Ex.PW50/3  was  also 
recovered  and  the  same  was  also  found  in  the  hands 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh. 

93.  During      the       interrogation      of  accused 

Gurmeet  Singh,  he  suffered  a  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW68/A  wherein  he  admitted  the  factum  of 
conspiracy.  As  per  his  disclosure  statement,  his 
room  in  house  no. 981,  Phase  IV,  Mohali  was  searched 
from  which  newspapers,  card  board  and  other 
incriminating  articles  were  recovered  as  per  memo, 
Ex . PW68/B,  in  the  presence  of  PW-68,  Puran  Chand 
and  PW-70,  Parnab  Sain.  The  said  articles  were 
examined  by  PW-165,  Roop  Singh,  a  Ballistic  Expert 
and  on  examination,  traces  of  high  explosion  of  RDX 
were  found  on  the  same.   Similarly  PW-160,   RS  Verma, 


247 


an  expert  of  the  CFSL,  Chandigarh,  who  was  also 
present  at  the  time  of  search,  also  confirmed  the 
traces  of  RDX  on  the  incriminating  articles 
recovered  from  the  room  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh. 

94.  He  further  submitted  that  after  arrest  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh,  on 
13.9.1995,  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was  also 
arrested  in  Delhi  and  he  suffered  a  disclosure 
statement  in  which  he  disclosed  the  entire  planning 
of  conspiracy  leading  to  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh 
and  other  persons.  Accused  Balwant  Singh  escaped 
from  the  Secretariat  after  the  bomb  blast  and 
reached  Patiala  where  he  parked  his  Scooter  No.  PB- 
11-1955  with  Prem  Singh  of  Pritam  Singh,  Cycle 
stand  at  Bus  Stand,  Patiala  from  where  he  reached 
the  house  of  his  foster  father  Dilawar  Singh  and 
disclosed  him  about  the  conspiracy  and  the  killing 
of  Beant  Singh.  On  10.9.1995  the  Scooter  of  Balwant 
Singh  was  recovered  from  the  Pritam  Cycle  stand 
Patiala  in  the  presence  of  PW-72,  Prem  Singh  and 
PW-73,  Kirat  Mohinder  Singh  and  on  the  search  of 
the  Scooter  belt  belt  made  of  cloth  making  for  belt 
bomb  was  also  recovered  and  accordingly  the 
scooter,   helmet  and  belt  was  taken  into  possession. 

95.  As  per  the  facts  disclosed  by  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  accused  Navjot  Singh  was  also 
arrested  and  thereafter  on  18.9.1995  accused  Nasib 
Singh  was   arrested  from  his  Village   Jhingran  Kalan 


248 


and  he  also  suffered  a  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW81/l,  regarding  concealment  of  RDX  with  him 
by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  thereafter 
13.700gm,  Ex.P99  RDX  was  recovered  in  consequences 
of  that  disclosure  statement  in  the  presence  of  PW- 
81,  Raghubir  Singh,  Ex-Sarpanch  of  Village  Jhingran 
Kalan  vide  recovery  memo,  Ex.PW81/2,  by  PW-243, 
A.P.Singh,  Deputy  Superintendent,  C.B.I.  Similarly 
during  the  search  of  the  house  of  accused  Navjot 
Singh  some  incriminating  writings  were  recovered 
showing  that  he  had  also  helped  the  accused 
persons  in  killing  of  Beant  Singh. 

96.  After    the    arrest    of    accused  Balwant 

Singh,  on  search  of  his  house  some  incriminating 
documents  showing  his  involvement  in  this 
conspiracy  were  also  recovered.  Not  even  this 
accused  Balwant  Singh  made  a  confession  before  the 
PW-65,  Sh . V . K . Maheshwari ,  Metropolitan  Magistrate, 
Delhi,  Ex.PW65/F,  Wherein  he  disclosed  as  to  how  he 
and  his  co-accused  persons  conspired  and  killed 
Beant  Singh.  Not  even  this  during  the  interrogation 
accused  Balwant  Singh  suffered  different  disclosure 
statement  and  identified  the  places  from  where  he 
and  Dilawar  Singh  along  with  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
got  the  police  uniforms  and  two  belts  stitched  and 
purchased  other  material  used  for  the  preparation 
of  belt  bomb  and  thereafter  he  identified  all  those 
places . 


249 


97.  Similarly,  as  per  his  disclosure 
statements  he  had  also  identified  all  the  places 
where  he  stayed  from  31.8.1995  till  his  arrest.  The 
chance  prints  lifted  from  Car  bearing  No.  DBA-9598 
used  in  the  commission  of  the  crime  were  got 
compared  with  the  specimen  finger  prints  of  accused 
persons  Balwant  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  some 
of  those  has  been  found  to  be  that  of  both  these 
accused  persons. 

98.  Learned  Public  Prosecutor,  as  such,  urged 
that  the  prosecution  has  led  sufficient 
circumstantial  evidence  on  the  file  which  completes 
a  chain  of  events  which  shows  that  all  the  accused 
persons  were  the  part  and  parcel  of  this  conspiracy 
and  killed  Beant  Singh  and  17  other  persons  with 
help  of  assassin  Dilawar  Singh,  who  acted  as  human 
bomb . 

99.  To     substantiate     its     case,     the  learned 
Public  Prosecutor  submitted  that  as  stated  earlier, 
immediately      after       the      blast       Babbar  Khalsa 
International     has     owned     the     responsibility  of 
killing  Beant   Singh  and  during  the  investigations, 
C.B.I  collected  sufficient  evidence  on  the  basis  of 
the  confessions  made  by  the  accused  persons  and  the 
disclosure    statement   made   by   the   accused  persons, 
which    leads    to    recovery   of    incriminating  articles 
and   the   material    facts,    which  points   out   that  all 
the      accused     persons      in      furtherance      of  their 


250 


conspiracy  did  different  acts  at  different  point  of 
time  with  sole  motive  to  kill  Beant  Singh. 

100.  He  further  submitted  that  the  most 
material  evidence  of  prosecution  against  the 
accused  persons  is  the  confession  made  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW65/F,  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara,  Ex.PW86/6  and  accused  Shamsher  Singh, 
Ex.PW103/G  and  these  confessions  made  by  the  co- 
accused  are  admissible  against  all  the  accused 
persons  as  it  is  a  case  of  conspiracy  involving 
multifarious  acts,  under  the  provisions  of  Section 
10  and  30  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act.  He  further 
submitted  that  although  the  accused  persons  have 
retracted  from  their  confession  during  the  trial 
but  it  is  proved  on  the  file  that  the  confessions 
made  by  all  these  accused  persons  were  not  only 
voluntarily  made  but  those  were  also  without  any 
fear,  threat  or  pressure  or  coercion  etc.  and 
those  are  admissible  in  evidence  as  these  are 
corroborated  from  the  circumstantial  evidence 
brought  on  the  file  on  all  broad  facts  and  as  such 
there  is  no  justifiable  reason  to  retract  from  the 
same  and  the  retraction  is  also  not  supported  by 
any  justifiable  reason  and  it  is  also  not  made 
within  the  reasonable  time  of  making  of  the  same. 

101.  To  substantiate  this  plea  further,  he 
submitted  that  the  confession  of  the  accused 
Balwant    Singh    was    recorded    on    23.01.1996    but  he 


251 


moved  an  application  on  20.2.1996  to  retract  from 
the  same  alleging  that  he  never  made  any  such 
confession.  However,  the  copy  of  the  challan  was 
already  with  him  and  he  was  knowing  about  the 
making  of  the  confession  and  as  such  he  failed  to 
explain  why  he  is  retracting  from  the  same 
specially  when  he  has  no  where  alleged  that  any 
inducement,  any  pressure  was  exerted  upon  him  to 
get  the  confessional  statement.  PW-65, 
V. K.Maheshwari,  who  recorded  the  confession  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  has  categorically  deposed 
that  he  recorded  the  confession  of  the  accused 
Balwant  Singh,  after  satisfying  himself  that 
Balwant  Singh  is  making  the  same  without  any 
threat,  promise  or  inducement  etc.  Not  even  this, 
despite  opportunity  being  granted,  accused  Balwant 
Singh  has  not  cross  examined  this  witness  on  any 
aspect  of  his  making  of  the  confession  and  the 
facts  disclosed  in  his  confession. 


102.  At     the     same     time,     there     is  sufficient 

incriminating  evidence  which  proves  the  previous 
and  subsequent  act  and  conduct  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh  leading  to  the  commission  of  this  crime  as 
disclosed  by  him  in  his  confessional  statement, 
Ex.PW65/F.  Not  even  this  when  question  no. 249  and 
250  was  put  to  accused  Balwant  Singh  regarding 
making  of  confessional  statements,  Ex.PW65/F,  he 
alleged  that  he  do  not  remember  and  in  question 
no. 253     he     admitted     that         in     his  confessional 


252 


statement,  Ex.PW65/F  he  disclosed  that  he  had 
adopted  Jaswant  Singh  and  his  daughter  Kamaldeep 
Kaur  as  his  father  and  sister.  This  fact  further 
shows  that  making  of  confessional  statement  by  this 
accused  is  not  disputed. 

103.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  further  proved  on 
the  file  that  accused  Balwant  Singh  had  admitted 
this  crime  by  way  of  extra  judicial  confession 
before  PW-94,  Gurpreet  Singh,  PW-95,  Tejinder  Pal 
Singh  and  PW-  102,  Kuljit  Singh  and  all  these  three 
witnesses  have  categorically  proved  this  fact.  All 
these  witnesses  were  previously  known  to  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  there  is  no  enmity  or  motive 
attributed  qua  these  witnesses  to  depose  falsely. 
As  such  this  fact  further  proves  that  the 
confessional  statement  of  accused  Balwant  Singh 
voluntarily  made  and  legally  recorded  and  thus 
admissible  in  evidence  not  only  against  accused 
Balwant  Singh  but  also  against  his  co  accused 
persons,  as  per  law  laid  down  in  2004  (3)  RCR 
Criminal  353,  and  even  this  extra  judicial 
confession  are  sufficient  to  link  the  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  to  prove  the  confession  made  by 
him  which  further  proves  the  link  of  the  remaining 
accused  persons. 

104.  Similarly,  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
(since  proclaimed  offender)  has  made  a  confessional 
statement,     Ex.PW86/G    on    22.9.1995    before  PW-86, 


253 


Balbir  Singh,  then  Special  Magistrate,  CBI,  Patiala 
and  till  6.5.1999  he  never  moved  an  application  for 
retracting  from  the  same  during  this  period  of  four 
year  and  for  the  first  time,  he  moved  an 
application  for  retracting  from  his  confession  only 
on  6 . 5 . 1 999 . However ,  before  this  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  moved  an  application  2.9.1998  in  which 
he  admitted  his  guilt.  Even  when  PW-86,  Balbir 
Singh  was  cross  examined  by  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  a 
suggestion  was  put  to  him  that  although  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  had  made  a  confessional  statement 
but  it  was  not  recorded  in  the  manner  disclosed  by 
him  and  this  fact  alone  shows  that  the  making  of 
disclosure  statement  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
is  duly  proved  on  the  file  and  there  is  nothing  on 
the  file  to  say  that  it  was  legally  retracted  or 
not  admissible. 

105.  Not  even  this,  when  PW-86  was  cross 
examined  by  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  he  partly  admitted 
the  making  of  the  confession  and  as  such  it  is 
proved  on  the  file  that  confession  made  by  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was  also  voluntarily  made  and  its 
retraction  at  the  later  stage  is  of  no  consequence 
and  it  also  proved  the  role  of  remaining  accused 
persons  as  per  the  provisions  of  Section  30  of  the 
Indian  Evidence  Act. 

106.  In  the  same  manner,  the  confession  of 
accused  Shamsher   Singh,    recorded  by   PW-103,  Dinesh 


254 


Kumar  Sharma,  Metropolitan  Magistrate, Patiala 
Courts  House,  New  Delhi,  on  16.12.1995,  Ex.PW103/G 
is  also  duly  proved  on  the  file  and  even  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  has  made  extra  judicial  confession 
before  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  admitting  the 
factum  of  conspiracy  by  his  co-accused  persons 
leading  to  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh.  Although, 
this  accused  has  made  a  confession  on  16.12.1995 
and  thereafter  remanded  to  judicial  custody  but  he 
never  moved  any  application  to  retract  from  his 
confession  till  20.2.1996,  when  for  the  first  time 
he  moved  an  application  for  retraction.  However, 
there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  justify  the  reasons 
for  retracting  from  the  confession  by  this  accused. 

107.  At  the  same  time,  when  PW-103,  Dinesh 
Kumar  Sharma,  who  has  recorded  the  confession  of 
this  accused  was  cross  examined  and  a  suggestion 
was  put  to  him  that  confessional  statement  of  this 
accused  has  been  made  by  him,  under  pressure  and 
after  wrongful  confinement.  However,  he  has  denied 
the  suggestion  in  clear  words  and  reiterated  that 
he  was  thoroughly  satisfied  after  questioning  the 
accused  that  he  is  willing  to  make  confession 
voluntarily  without  any  pressure  or  threat  etc. 

108.  On  the  contrary,  accused  Shamsher  Singh 
disclosed  him  that  he  is  religious  person  and  he 
came  in  contact  with  the  terrorists  as  he  was  also 
under    the    threat    of    life    by    the    other  terrorist 


255 


organization  and  whatever  has  been  done  by  him,  it 
was  due  to  compulsion  and  he  wants  to  make  a 
statement  so  that  true  story  should  come  out  and 
when  the  accused  was  questioned  that  he  can 
disclose  if  any  threat  etc.  has  been  given  by  the 
CBI,  the  accused  disclosed  that  he  has  not  been 
maltreated  by  CBI  officials  nor  he  is  under  any 
threat  force  and  coercion  and  making  the  confession 
voluntarily  and  after  granting  some  time  to  the 
accused  to  think  over,  the  statement  was  recorded 
at  about  3.30  p.m.,  although  he  was  produced  before 
PW-103  at  11.30  a.m.  As  such,  there  is  no  ground  to 
disbelieve  the  confession  made  by  this  accused, 
which  is  further  corroborated  on  all  material 
aspect  of  this  case  by  way  of  circumstantial 
evidence,  extra  judicial  confession  made  before  PW- 
114  and  the  act  and  conduct  of  the  accused  before 
and  after  the  crime.  As  such,  as  per  the  law  laid 
down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  AIR  2004,  Supreme 
Court,  page  4197,  these  confessions  are  sufficient 
circumstance  to  prove  the  case  of  the  prosecution. 

109.  To   further   fortify  his   case,    he  submitted 

that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  on  the  file  which 
proves  that  accused  Dilawar  Singh,  Balwant  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh  were  close 
friends  and  were  associated  with  each  other  and  it 
has  been  categorically  proved  by  PW-54,  Deepinder 
Singh,  PW-95,  Tejinder  Pal  Singh,  PW-114,  Dalbir 
Singh    @    Maulla    and    PW-111,    Mohan    Pal,     that  all 


256 


these  accused  persons  were  knowing  each  other  and 
they  conspired  together  to  kill  Beant  Singh  as 
alleged  by  the  prosecution.  Not  even  this,  all  the 
accused  persons  involved  in  the  conspiracy  were 
identified  by  all  the  material  witnesses  through 
photographs,  which  they  themselves  identified  from 
the  bunch  of  photographs  shown  to  them  and  this 
fact  further  proves  the  involvement  of  all  the 
accused  persons  in  this  conspiracy. 

110.  He  further  submitted  that  at  the  same 
time,  the  prosecution  has  collected  sufficient 
circumstantial  evidence  as  per  overt  acts  and  acts 
of  omission  and  commission  done  by  all  the  accused 
persons  prior  to  the  conspiracy  including  the 
preparation,  the  acts  done  during  the  execution  of 
the  conspiracy  and  the  acts  of  omissions  and 
commissions  done  after  the  commission  of  the  crime 
till  their  arrest  and  the  recoveries  of  the 
incriminating  articles  and  material  facts  made 
after  their  arrest  and  this  circumstantial  chain 
clearly  links  the  role  of  each  of  the  accused 
persons  with  the  conspiracy. 

111.  He  further  submitted  that  the  prosecution 
has  brought  sufficient  evidence  on  the  file  which 
proves  that  after  the  commission  of  the  offence 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh 
absconded  and  stayed  at  different  places  with  false 
identities        and    false    names     in    order    to  avoid 


257 


arrest  and  this  clinching  fact  also  links  these 
accused  persons  with  the  factum  of  conspiracy  and 
its  execution  and  their  involvement  in  the 
execution  of  the  same  and  this  circumstance 
clinches  the  entire  issue. 

112.  He    further    submitted   that    in   view   of  the 

testimony  of  PW-76,  Amarjit  Singh,  it  is  proved  on 
the  file  that  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  got  stitched  two 
uniforms  one  each,  for  Dilawar  Singh  &  Balwant 
Singh  as  per  bill,  Ex.PW76/l-A.  Similarly,  PW-75, 
Jasbir  Singh,  also  proved  that  on  24.8.1995  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  along  with  Balwant  Singh  came 
to  his  shop  and  asked  for  stitching  of  one  belt  and 
pent  for  both  of  them  as  per  the  measurement  given 
by  them  and  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  also  gave  a 
sketch  of  the  belt,  which  was  later  on  recovered 
from     his  possession     as     per     his  disclosure 

statement.  It  is  also  proved  on  the  file  that  on 
25.8.1995  accused  Balwant  Singh  took  the  delivery 
of  one  of  the  belts  and  ordered  for  another  belt  of 
green  colour  and  he  accordingly  stitched  the  second 
belt  which  accused  Balwant  Singh  took  from  him  and 
this  belt  was  later  on  recovered  from  the  dickey  of 
the  Scooter  of  Balwant  Singh  and  identified  by  PW- 
75,  Jasbir  Singh  and  all  other  witnesses  as 
Ex.P96.  Both  these  witnesses  have  identified 
accused  Balwant  Singh  &  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  the 
court  and  also  the  photographs  of  deceased  Dilawar 


258 


Singh . 


113.  To  further  link  the  story,  learned  Public 
Prosecutor  submitted  that  it  has  been  categorically 
stated  by  PW-218,  Harkesh,  one  of  the  Ranger  of 
National  Security  Guard  that  at  the  time  of  this 
occurrence  he  found  one  person  in  the  police 
uniform  going  towards  the  car  of  CM  and  before  he 
could  understand  there  was  a  blast. 

114.  Learned  Public  Prosecutor  further 
submitted  that  it  is  also  proved  on  the  file  that 
there  was  definite  motive  with  the  accused  persons 
to  kill  the  deceased  Beant  Singh.  To  substantiate 
this  plea  he  submitted  that  as  submitted  by  the 
accused  Balwant  Singh  in  his  written  explanation  to 
the  case  of  the  prosecution,  all  the  accused 
persons  were  having  perception  on  the  instigation 
of  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  that  Beant  Singh  has  usurped  the  power  after 
1992  election  in  the  state  of  Punjab  despite  the  by 
cot  of  these  election  by  the  main  political  parties 
and  after  becoming  Chief  Minister  he  indulged  in 
indiscriminate  atrocities  against  the  innocent 
Sikhs  by  killing,  illegal  custodies,  tortures, 
elimination  and  false  encounter  and  thereby 
indulged  in  activities  against  the  Sikh  religion 
and  started  claiming  himself  to  be  Ambassador  of 
Peace  and  incarnation  of  Guru  Gobind  Singh  and  Lord 
Rama . 


259 


115.  All  the  accused  persons  were  not  happy 
with  this  role  of  Beant  Singh  and  they  think  him 
enemy  no .  1  of  the  Sikh  community  and  the  main 
hurdle  for  the  creation  of  Khalistan  and  to  achieve 
this  motive,  all  of  them  on  the  instigation  of 
Internationally  sponsored  Terrorist  Groups, 
specially  Babbar  Khalsa  International,  which  were 
further  helped  by  some  International  Countries, 
hatched  a  conspiracy  and  helped  each  other  by 
contributing  his  role,  as  found  during  the 
investigations  and  this  fact  is  a  strong 
circumstance  which  fortify  the  case  of  the 
prosecution . 

116.  Not  even  this,  from  the  documents,  Ex.P137 
to  Ex.P150,  it  is  proved  that  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  has  owned  the  responsibility  for 
killing  Beant  Singh  within  hours  of  this  bomb  blast 
and  they  also  published  a  pamphlet/poster  Ex.P150 
paying  homage  to  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  for 
killing  Beant  Singh  and  declaring  him  as  Martyr  and 
this  fact  further  proved  on  the  file  from  the  fax 
message  mark  AAA,  DDD  and  EEE,  as  proved  on  the 
file  by  PW-35  and  PW-38. 

117.  He  further  submitted  that  there  is 
sufficient  evidence  on  the  file  which  further 
proved  that  all  the  accused  persons  facing  trial  in 
this     case     were     known     to     each     other     and  were 


260 


associated  with  each  other  from  a  very  long  time. 
First  of  all  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh,  elder  brother 
of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  had  deposed  that  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  were  close  friends 
and  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  &  Gurmeet  Singh  were 
residents  of  same  street  and  all  were  known  to  each 
other.  This  very  fact  is  also  corroborated  by  PW- 
54,  Deepinder  Mehta,  PW-95,  Tejnder  Pal  Singh,  PW 
113,  Surinder  Singh,  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla 
and  PW-111,  Mohan  Pal  and  it  is  also  undisputed 
case  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  &  Gurmeet  Singh 
that  they  are  known  to  each  other  and  residents  of 
same  street.  Thus,  the  association  of  accused 
persons  with  each  other  further  shows  that  they  all 
were  having  confidence  with  each  other  and  they 
hatched  this  conspiracy  accordingly. 

118.  Learned       Public       Prosecutor  further 

submitted  that  one  more  material  circumstance  which 
links  the  accused  persons  with  this  conspiracy  is 
that  Scooter  No.  PB-11-1955,  Exhibited  Ex.P-77,  is 
proved  to  be  owned  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  it 
is  proved  that  this  scooter  was  used  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  his  co  accused  during  and  prior 
to  the  conspiracy  and  even  after  the  blast  accused 
Balwant  Singh  escaped  to  Patiala  on  the  Scooter.  To 
substantiate  this  plea,  he  submitted  that  in  view 
of  testimony  of  PW-42,  Amar  Singh,  it  is  proved  on 
the  file  that  this  witness  has  purchased  this 
Scooter    from    its    original    owner    Major    Singh  and 


261 


then  sold  it  to  PW-34,  Kamalpreet  Singh  Walia  as 
per  the  documents  Ex.PW34/l  to  Ex.PW34/4  and  also 
handed  over  the  registration  of  the  scooter  to  him 
and  further  PW-34,  has  also  deposed  that  after 
purchasing  the  Scooter  from  PW-42  he  sold  the  same 
to  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  through  a  agent  Vipan 
Kumar  and  he  handed  over  the  affidavit  executed  by 
registered  owner  Amar  Singh,  Ex.PW34/l  along  with 
other  documents  to  Dilawar  Singh  and  he  has  also 
identified  the  photographs  of  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  mark  YY .  Even  PW-54,  Deepinder  Mehta  as 
supported  the  version  of  PW-34  and  deposed  that  the 
Scooter  in  question  was  purchased  by  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh. 

119.  One  more   circumstance  which   links  accused 

Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  and  the 
Scooter  with  this  case  is  that  PW-49,  ASI  Arun 
Kumar  has  proved  that  on  24.8.1995  he  challaned  the 
Scooter  when  it  was  being  driven  by  accused  Balwant 
Singh  with  one  pillion  rider  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
as  per  the  challan  chit,  Ex.PW49/l  and  the  RC  of 
the  Scooter  was  taken  into  possession  and  he  had 
also  identified  the  photographs  of  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW49/3  and 
Ex.PW49/4  and  have  also  identified  both  these 
accused  persons  in  the  court.  The  testimony  of  all 
these  four  witnesses  remained  unrebutted  and  it 
proved  beyond  doubt  that  the  Scooter  N . PB-1 1-1 955 , 
Ex.P77    was    in   possession   of   accused   Balwant  Singh 


262 


and  Dilawar  Singh  and  on  24.8.1995  Balwant  Singh 
and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  were  found  together  at 
Chandigarh . 

120.  Above  all,  from  the  testimony  of  PW-72, 
Prem  Singh  and  PW-73,  Kirat  Mohinder  Singh,  it  is 
further  proved  on  the  file  that  on  31.8.1995 
accused  Balwant  Singh  after  the  blast  reached 
Patiala  on  the  Scooter  and  parked  the  same  in 
Pritam  Cycle  Stand,  Bus  Stand  Patiala,  owned  by  PW- 
73,  in  the  presence  of  PW-72,  Prem  Singh  along  with 
helmet,  Ex.P94  and  later  on  10.9.1995  the  Scooter 
was  recovered  from  Pritam  Cycle  Stand  in  the 
presence  of  both  these  witnesses  and  when  the 
dickey  of  scooter  was  searched  a  cloth  belt, 
Ex.P97,  was  recovered  from  the  same  and  same  was 
taken  into  possession  as  per  the  recovery  memo 
Ex.P72/2.  Similarly  both  these  witnesses  identified 
the  photographs  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  from  a 
bunch  of  photographs  which  is  mark  QQQQ  and  PW-72. 
had  also  identified  accused  Balwant  Singh  in  the 
court.  He  had  also  identified  the  receipt  of  the 
Scooter,  Ex.P72/l  issued  by  him  to  the  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  from  the  testimony  of  these  two 
witnesses,  it  is  proved  that  this  Scooter  belongs 
to  Balwant  singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  and  was  used  in 
the  commission  of  the  crime. 

121.  Similarly,  another  Scooter  PCP-2085, 
Ex.P80,   which  was  owned  by  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 


263 


is  also  proved  to  have  been  used  in  the  commission 
of  this  crime.  PW-54,  Deepinder  Mehta  has 
categorically  deposed  that  he  was  knowing  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Balwant  Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh  and 
Dilawar  Singh  being  residents  of  his  street  in 
Patiala  and  he  purchased  the  scooter  No.  PCP-2085 
from  one  Harjit  Singh  as  per  the  affidavit,  Ex.D-9 
and  sold  the  same  to  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  as 
per  the  receipt,  Ex.PW54/l.  It  is  also  proved  on 
the  file  when  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  arrested 
this  scooter  was  also  recovered  from  him  and  even 
PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma,  a  painter  of  Sector  7 
corroborated  this  fact.  Even  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @ 
Maul la,  who  was  friend  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
also  corroborated  the  stand  of  PW-54  and  he  also 
corroborated  that  this  scooter  has  been  purchased 
by  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  the  commission  of 
crime . 

122.  The    other    circumstance,    which   proved  the 

use  of  Car  No.  DBA-9598,  Ex.P76  by  the  accused 
persons,  is  proved  from  the  testimony  of  PW-51,  who 
deposed  that  on  26.8.1995  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
came  to  his  shop  with  two  other  accused  persons 
along  with  the  car  in  question  having  steel  grey 
colour  and  requested  him  to  paint  the  car  into  off 
white  colour  and  hand  over  the  same  by  29.8.1995 
and  accordingly  after  painting  the  car  on 
29.8.1995,  one  person  with  trimmed  beard  came  to 
his  shop  along  with  Lakhwinder  Singh  for  taking  the 


264 


delivery  of  the  car  but  PW-51  ask  them  to  take  the 
delivery  of  car  on  30.8.1995  and  thereafter  he 
handed  over  the  car  to  them  and  before  that  he  also 
got  the  number  plates  repainted  from  PW-54,  Tota 
Ram.  He  had  also  identified  the  car  as  well  as 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  the  court  and  also 
deposed  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  also 
arrested  in  his  presence.  He  also  identified  the 
photo  graph  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  mark  YY-4,  as 
the  person  who  accompanied  Lakhwinder  Singh,  on  all 
the  three  days.  He  also  identified  the  photographs 
of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  mark  SSS. 


123.  Even    PW-114,     Dalbir    Singh    @    Maulla  had 

supported  this  stand  and  deposed  that  he  knows 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  and  on  30.8.1995  on  the  request  of  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  he  took  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  to  the 
shop  of  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma,  where  accused 
Dialwar  Singh  was  already  present  and  admitted  that 
they  have  come  to  take  the  delivery  of  the  car  and 
he  further  deposed  that  on  the  day  of  bomb  blast 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  were 
present  in  Civil  Secretariat  and  after  the  blast 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  met  him  near  the  Rock 
garden  and  admitted  this  occurrence. 


124.  Thus   this   evidence  proves   that  the   car  in 

question  was  used  by  the  accused  persons  in  the 
commission   of   the   crime   and   after   the   recovery  of 


265 


the  car  the  chance  finger  prints  lifted  from  the 
car  matches  with  the  finger  print  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh.  The  traces  of 
RDX  were  found  from  all  the  articles  recovered  from 
the  spot  and  as  per  the  opinion  of  the  expert 
witness,  it  is  proved  that  a  belt  bomb  was  used  by 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  in  which  RDX  and  other 
material  was  packed  and  exploded  to  kill  deceased 
Beant  Singh.  At  the  same  time  no  motive  or  enmity 
has  been  attributed  qua  the  witnesses  of 
prosecution  on  this  aspect.  As  such,  all  the 
circumstantial  evidence  completes  the  chain  showing 
the  role  played  by  each  and  every  accused  persons 
in  the  execution  of  the  conspiracy. 

125.  Lastly,         learned         Public  Prosecutor 

explained  the  role  played  by  each  and  every  accused 
persons  in  groups  with  each  other  as  well  as 
individually  before  the  conspiracy,  after  the 
execution  of  the  conspiracy  and  the  incriminating 
articles  recovered  and  the  facts  disclosed  by  the 
accused  persons,  after  their  arrest  as  per  their 
confessions  and  disclosure  statement  and  concluded 
that  there  is  no  scope  of  doubt  regarding  the 
genesis  of  occurrence  that  it  was  a  bomb  blast 
caused  by  the  deceased  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  being 
a  human  bomb  resulting  into  killing  of  Beant  Singh 
and  16  other  persons  and  all  this  was  done  by  all 
the  accused  persons  in  conspiracy  with  each  other. 


266 


126.  To  substantiate  this  part,  he  submitted 
that  after  the  arrest  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
it  was  disclosed  by  him  that  accused  Navjot  Singh 
was  also  involved  in  this  conspiracy  as  RDX 
brought  by  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  was  kept  in  the 
house  of  accused  Navjot  Singh  and  after  the  arrest 
of  accused  Navjot  Singh,  when  the  search  of  house 
of  accused  Navjot  Singh  was  conducted  by  PW-244, 
R.S.Dhankar,  documents  Ex.PW91/23,  Ex.P91/25, 
Ex.PW91/27,  Ex.PW91/29  and  Ex.PW91/46  were 
recovered  and  after  comparing  the  hand  writing  of 
these  documents,  PW-166,  Tilak  Raj  Nehra  held  the 
same  to  be  in  the  hand  writing  of  accused  Navjot 
Singh  and  these  documents  clearly  shows  that 
accused  Navjot  Singh  was  part  and  parcel  of  the 
conspiracy  being  a  member  of  Anand  Kirtani  Jatha . 

127.  Similarly  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
suffered  a  disclosure  statement,  Ex.PW80/l 
disclosing  that  on  25.8.1995  he  along  with  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  along  with  three  other  persons  went  to 
Village  Jhingran  Kalan  and  then  to  the  house  of 
accused  Nasib  Singh  and  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
brought  two  bags  of  RDX  from  the  house  of  accused 
Nasib  Singh  and  also  disclosed  that  some  more  RDX 
is  lying  in  the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh,  who 
is  also  part  and  partcel  of  this  conspiracy  and 
after  that  he  identified  the  house  of  accused  Nasib 
Singh  and  then  accused  Nasib  Singh  was  also 
arrested     and     he      also      suffered     a  disclosure 


267 


statement,  Ex.P81/l  in  the  presence  of  PW-81, 
Raghubir  Singh,  Ex  Sarpanch  of  Village  Jhingran 
Kalan  and  admitted  that  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  kept  the  RDX  in  his  house  and  he  was  knowing 
that  it  was  being  used  for  the  murder  of  Beant 
Singh  and  thereafter  as  per  his  disclosure 
statement,  accused  Nasib  Singh  himself  brought  one 
bag  from  the  cattle  fodder  and  on  search  13.700  kg. 
RDX  was  recovered  from  that  bag  which  was  taken 
into  possession  vide  recovery  memo,  Ex.PW81/2  after 
converting  the  same  into  sealed  parcel. 

128.  Learned  Public  Prosecutor  further 
submitted  that  although  PW-81,  Raghubir  Singh  has 
been  won  over  by  the  accused  persons  but  he  still 
deposed  that  the  RDX  was  recovered  from  the  house 
of  Nasib  Singh  as  per  the  recovery  memo,  Ex.PW81/2 
and  it  was  sealed  and  packed  into  a  bag  in  his 
presence.  He  identified  that  bag  as  Ex.P98  and  the 
RDX  as  Ex.P99  and  thus  the  factum  of  recovery  of 
RDX  is  duly  proved  and  links  the  accused,  Nasib 
Singh  with  the  conspiracy. 

129.  Apart  from  this,  it  is  also  proved  on  the 
file  that  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 
instigated  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  to  kill 
Beant  Singh  and  accused  Balwant  Singh  &  Dilawar 
Singh  were  also  decided  to  kill  Beant  Singh 
because  of  his  alleged  atrocities.  Accused  Harjit 
Singh,    since   absconding,    met   accused  Balwant  Singh 


268 


some  where  in  the  month  of  March  or  April,  1995  and 
asked  Balwant  Singh  to  kill  Beant  Singh  with  the 
promise  of  all  type  of  help.  In  the  month  of  June, 
1995  Harjit  Singh  called  Balwant  Singh  on  the 
telephone  of  Bhushan  Sirhandi  and  asked  him  to  meet 
a  person  at  Gurduwara  Seesh  Ganj  in  this  regard  and 
thereafter  accused  Balwant  Singh  met  that  person, 
who  was  later  on  identified  as  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  both  of  them  went  to  Guest  House  at  Ghaziabad 
and  discussed  the  plan.  Thereafter  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Sngh  planned  to  kill 
Beant  Singh  by  exploding  a  belt  bomb  and  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  offered  himself  as  human  bomb. 
Thereafter  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant 
Singh  got  stitched  belt  bomb  and  then  they  met 
Paramjit  Singh  @  Kala  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
they  all  met  at  Gurudwara  Dukh  Niwaran  Patiala, 
where  Dilawar  also  joined  them. 

130.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Jagtar  Singh 

Hawara  procured  a  Car  No.  DBA-9598  and  brought  it 
to  Patiala  and  then  they  collected  explosive  from 
Village  Jhingran  Kalana  and  came  to  Mohali.  Accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  went  to  Patiala  and 
got  stitched  two  police  uniforms  and  took  the 
delivery  of  belt.  The  colour  of  the  car  was  got 
changed  from  Grey  to  White  by  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
with  the  help  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  there 
after  all  of  them  went  to  the  room  of  Gurmeet 
Singh.    On   the    intervening   night   of    28/29.8.1995  a 


269 


final  plan  to  explode  Beant  Singh  by  a  human  bomb 
was  prepared  by  the  accused  Dilawar  Singh,  Balwant 
Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Paramjit  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  an  attempt 
was  also  made  on  30.8.1995  but  it  could  not  succeed 
as  Beant  Singh  had  already  left  Secretariat. 
Ultimately  on  31.8.1995  again  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  was  loaded  with  belt  bomb  by  Balwant  Singh  & 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  electric  circuit  was 
completed  by  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  then  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  and  Dilawar  Singh  left  in  car  No-DBA 
9598, Ex. 76  and  reached  Secretariat.  After  some  time 
accused  Balwant  Singh  reached  there  on  his  Scooter 
and  then  as  per  the  plan  Dilawar  Singh  exploded 
himself  near  to  the  Car  of  Beant  Singh  killing  him 
and  16  other  persons  and  thus  it  is  proved  on  the 
file  that  all  the  accused  persons  who  were  part  and 
parcel  of  this  conspiracy  committed  this  crime  on 
the  instigation  of  International  Terrorist 
Organizations,  specially  Babbar  Khalsa 

International  and  immediately  after  the  blast 
Babbar  Khalsa  International  also  owned  the 
responsibility.  With  these  submission  he  submitted 
that  the  case  of  prosecution  is  proved  against  all 
the  accused  persons  and  they  be  convicted 
accordingly . 

131.  The     prosecution     has     also     relied  upon 

various  authorities  in  support  of  the  proposition 
of  law  applicable  to  the  case  in  hand  which  will  be 
discussed  at  the  appropriate  time. 


270 


Vol. II 


DEFENCE  VERSION 


132.  While    challenging   the    entire    case    of  the 

prosecution,  Shri  DS. Chimney  learned  defence 
counsel,  assisted  by  a  team  of  lawyers  and  Shri 
A.S.Chahal  Advocate,  vehemently  submitted  that  the 
entire  story  of  the  prosecution  leading  to  the 
prosecution  of  the  accused  persons  is  based  on 
suppression  of  true  genesis  of  the  occurrence  by 
concealing  the  material  evidence  available  at  the 
spot  by  way  of  deliberate  acts  of  omission  and 
commission  to  frame  the  accused  persons  and  there 
are  sufficient  circumstances  on  the  file  which 
shows  that  this  case  was  investigated  by  the  CBI 
after  the  arrest  of  the  accused  persons  and  a  cock 
and  bull  story  was  concocted  by  collecting  evidence 
by  going  backward  to  link  the  accused  persons  with 
this  crime.  Thus  the  CBI  has  conducted  a  tainted 
and  bias  investigation  and  arrested  and  challaned 
the  accused  persons  despite  the  fact  that  there  was 
no  legal  evidence  against  any  of  them. 


133.  To    substantiate    his    case,     he  submitted 

that  this  case  can  be  termed  as  a  case  of  no 
investigations  or  at  the  most  a  badly  investigated 
case  from  its  very  beginning  till  its  end  and  all 
the  material  aspects  of  the  case  available  at  the 
spot  after  the  crime  were  suppressed. 


271 


134.  To    support    this    theory   he    submitted  that 

there  are  hundreds  of  circumstances  which  shows 
that  this  case  was  never  investigated  in  the  manner 
it  was  required,  to  go  to  the  root  of  the  blast  and 
the  CBI  has  worked  as  contract  Bureau  of 
Investigations  and  made  a  half  cooked,  half  raw 
story  leading  no  where.  In  support  of  this,  he  at 
the  very  out  set  of  his  arguments,  pointed  out  the 
following  circumstances : - 

(a)  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  admitted 
case    of    the    prosecution    that    at    least  16 
vehicles    were    damaged,     including    the  three 
cars  of  the  carcade        of     the     CM     and  his 
escort  vehicles  but  no  report  of  any  damage  to 
any  of  the  vehicles  were  got        prepared  from 
any  expert  or  by  any  Police  Officer. 

(b)  There    is    no    report    on    the    file  to 
show  the  magnitude  of  the  blast  and  damage,  to 
show  how  the    bomb    caused    damaged    to  other 
vehicles  and    how  it  was  possible. 

(c)  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  admitted 
by  the  CBI  that  the  investigations  of  this 
case  were  taken  over  by  it  from  Chandigarh 
Police  on  1.9.1995,  there  is  no  record  on  the 
file  to  show  that  what  was  done  by  the  CBI 
Authorities  on  1.9.1995. 


272 


(d)  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  admitted 
case  of  the  CBI  that  a  spot  inspection  cum 
seizure  memo  was  prepared  on  1.9.1995  but  the 
same  has  not  been  made  part  of  the  record  for 
the  reasons  best  known  to  the  prosecuting 
agency  and  there  is  no  explanation  in  this 
regard  also. 

(e)  PW-165,  Roop  Singh,  a  Ballistics 
Expert  of  the  CFSL,  who  was  one  of  the  member 
of  the  team  of  Expert,  who  visited  the  spot  on 
1.9.1995,  admitted  that  he  directed  the 
investigating  officer  to  lift  certain 
incriminating  articles  from  the  spot  and  those 
were  also  picked  up  but  none  of  those  articles 
were  made  part  of  the  record  and  there  is  no 
explanation  as  to  where  those  articles  had 
gone.  It  is  further  admitted  by  PW-165  that 
the  wind  screen  of  the  car  of  CM  was  blown  off 
and  was  examined  by  him  and  report  in  this 
regard  was  also  prepared  but  that  report  was 
also  not  made  part  of  the  record. 

(f)  From  the  inquest  report  of  Beant 
singh,  it  is  proved  on  the  file  that  a  Video 
film  of  the  scene  of  crime  was  prepared  on 
31.8.1995  but  there  is  no  mention  of  this 
video  film  in  the  investigations  and  it  has 
also  not  been  made  part  of  the  record  and  has 
been    suppressed   for   the    reasons    known   to  the 


273 


CBI  . 


(g)  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  admitted 
by  the  CBI  that  the  Video  Film  was  sent  to 
Lt.Col  Manik  Sabharwal,  a  Ballistics  Expert  of 
the  Army,  and  he  also  prepared  a  spot 
inspection  report,  mark  CQ/1  dated  12.10.1995 
and  gave  his  opinion  as  to  the  cause  and 
manner  of  blast  but  this  witness  was  not 
examined  during  the  trial  and  his  report  was 
not  relied  upon  which  further  shows  that  the 
material  facts  have  been  suppressed. 

(h)  It  is  also  admitted  by  PW-240, 
Inspector  Nanha  Ram,  the  first  Investigating 
Officer  of  the  Chandigarh  Police  and  who  was 
the  first  one  to  reach  at  the  spot  to  assess 
the  situation,  that  he  had  called  two  Police 
photographers  and  took  the  photographs  of  the 
scene  of  the  crime  including  the  photographs 
of  two  legs  and  a  skull  and  the  car  DBA-9598 
but  none  of  these  photographs  have  been  made 
part  of  the  record.  Even,  the  photographs 
taken  by  the  CBI  independently  were  not  made 
part  of  the  record. 

(i)  The  CBI  had  relied  upon  the 
photographs  taken  by  the  Lalji  Mishra,  an 
expert  of  FSL  Punjab  but  there  is  no  evidence 
on    the    file    as    to    who    had    called    Mr.  Lalji 


274 


Mishra  at  the  spot  and  how  he  took  the 
photographs  and  what  is  the  authenticity  of 
those  photographs 

(j)  None    of    the    cars    of    the    Carcade  of 

the  CM  has  been  produced  in  the  court  during 
the  trial  to  show  the  magnitude  of  the  damage 
and  the  effect  of  the  blast  on  the  vehicle 
including  the  report  of  any  expert  in  this 
regard . 

(k)  No    part    of    the    bomb    or    the  alleged 

belt  bomb  has  been  found  at  the  spot. 

(1)  It   is   admitted  case  of  PW-31   and  PW- 

240,  Nanha  Ram  that  there  were  so  many  weapons 
lying  scattered  at  the  spot  but  despite 
this,  none  of  these  weapon  and  the  arms  and 
ammunitions  found  at  the  spot  was  taken  into 
possession  or  examined  by  a  Expert  and  no  such 
report  has  been  brought  on  the  file  to  show 
the  presence  of  these  weapons  and  its 
repercussions . 

(m)  No  site  plan  of  the  recovery  of  any  of 
the  articles  lifted  from  the  spot  or  during 
the  entire  investigations  has  been  prepared 
and  brought  on  the  record. 

135.  He    further    submitted    that    the    factum  of 


275 


faulty  investigations  is  further  proved  on  the  file 
from  the  FIR,  Ex.PW30/4,  which  has  been  registered 
at  8.30  p.m.,  on  the  statement  of  PW-30  as  there  is 
no  explanation  on  the  file  as  to  why  the  FIR  was 
not  immediately  registered  despite  the  fact  that 
there  were  so  many  eye  witnesses  of  the  occurrence 
including  Baldev  Singh,  MLA,  who  was  alive  at  that 
time  and  who  was  the  most  important  eye  witness 
being  present  near  the  Chief  Minister,  HC  Baljit 
Singh  driver  of  the  other  car  of  the  CM,  PW-6, 
Manojit  Pal,  a  Security  man.  On  the  contrary,  it 
shows  that  the  FIR  was  registered  later  on  to  twist 
the  facts  as  per  their  reguirements  only  in  the 
next  morning. 

136.  Not  even  this,  on  the  evening  of  31.8.1995 
itself  the  investigations  were  handed  over  to  the 
CBI  but  the  formal  registration  of  the  case  in  the 
CBI  division  was  registered  on  1.9.1995  at  11.30 
a.m  and  then  investigations  were  started  by  the  CBI 
team  only  the  after  noon  of  1.9.1995.  Not  even  this 
it  is  further  clear  from  the  records  that  after 
taking  over  the  investigations  by  the  CBI  on 
1.9.1995  nothing  was  done  by  the  CBI  till  3.9.1995 
and  all  the  proceedings  done  by  the  CBI  on  1.9.1995 
have  been  suppressed  and  concealed. 

137.  The  learned  defence  counsel  further 
submitted  that  the  entire  case  of  the  prosecution 
leading  to  the  theory  of  human     bomb  blast  is  based 


276 


on  the  recovery  of  two  legs  and  a  skull  of  a 
unknown  person  from  the  spot,  which  was  later  on 
identified  to  be  of  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  but 
there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  prove  the 
existence  of  two  legs  and  the  skull  at  the  spot 
immediately  after  the  blast  and  its  recovery 
leading  to  the  blast  by  a  human  bomb. 

138.  To  substantiate  his  plea,  he  submitted 
that  while  the  postmortem  report  of  dead  body  of 
Baldev  Singh  deceased  was  conducted  by  PW-6, 
Dr.Diwan  and  he  found  that  the  injuries  leading  to 
death  of  Baldev  Singh  were  caused  by  bomb  a  of 
incendiary  type.  At  the  same  time,  the  prosecution 
allege  that  on  31.8.1995,  when  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram 
visited  the  spot,  he  took  into  possession  the  two 
legs  and  a  skull  of  unknown  person  and  kept  the 
same  in  a  refrigerator  of  Govt  Hospital  Sector  16, 
where  as  later  on  it  was  alleged  that  those  were 
sent  to  P.G.I. 

139.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  alleged  that  on 
2.9.95  on  the  asking  of  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram  these  two 
legs  and  skull  were  examined  by  PW-16,  Dr.Sawhney 
to  give  an  opinion  but  no  documentary  evidence  has 
been  brought  on  the  file  to  show  that  any 
application  has  been  moved  in  this  regard  with 
Dr.Sawhney.  Even  Dr.Sawhney  has  admitted  that  he 
has  not  prepared  any  report  regarding  the 
examination  of  two   legs   and  the   skull  nor  he  gives 


277 


anything  else  in  writing.  On  the  contrary  as  per 
the  DDR  No. 47  dated  1.9.1995,  when  Nanha  Ram 
reported  back  to  the  Police  Station  and  recorded 
this  fact  in  Daily  Diary,  there  was  no  mention  of 
the  recovery  of  any  two  legs  and  a  skull  nor  his 
presence  in  the  Hospital  on  2.9.1995,  as  the  DDR, 
Ex.D8  shows  that  Nanha  Ram  was  on  VIP  duty  during 
that  time.  Even  in  the  postmortem  report  of 
deceased  Beant  Singh,  it  is  no  where  mentioned  that 
near  the  body  of  Beant  Singh  two  legs  and  a  skull 
were  also  found. 

140.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  admitted  case  of 
the  prosecution  that  two  legs  and  skull  were 
examined  by  PW-6  for  the  purpose  of  postmortem 
examination  only  on  4.9.1995  but  there  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  to  show  the  existence  and 
recovery  of  these  two  legs  and  a  skull  after  the 
incident  till  its  examination  and  there  is  nothing 
on  the  file  as  to  where  these  legs  and  skull  were 
kept.  In  the  inguest  report,  Ex.PW6/42  it  is 
mentioned  that  these  two  legs  and  skull  were  being 
sent  to  PGI  but  PW-240  alleged  that  it  was  taken  to 
G.H  Sector  16  Chandigarh.  There  is  a  cutting  in  the 
application  moved  by  SI  Gamdoor  Singh  for  the  PMR 
of  two  legs  and  a  skull,  Ex.PW6/40  and  SI  Gamdoor 
Singh,  PW-176,  admitted  that  he  was  not  present 
when  it  was  prepared  on  5.9.1995. 

141.  Thus    there   is   no   evidence   on   the    file  to 


278 


show  the  recovery  of  these  two  legs  and  skull  from 
the  spot  on  31.8.1995.  Even  Dr.Sawhney  in  his  cross 
examination  admitted  that  he  has  not  prepared  any 
written  report  of  his  examination  on  2.9.1995  and 
the  description  given  by  him  of  the  legs  is  that 
these  were  below  groin  crease  whereas  the  case  of 
the  prosecution  that  these  legs  were  below  knee. 

142  All  these  facts  &  circumstances  shows  that 
these  legs  and  skull  were  not  recovered  from  the 
spot  but  it  was  introduced  later  on  to  link  and 
prove  the  human  bomb  theory.  No  mortuary  register 
of  GH  Sector  16  has  been  brought  on  the  record  to 
prove  the  depositing  of  these  legs  and  skull  in  the 
mortuary.  On  the  contrary,  when  the  defence 
insisted,  PW-20  alleged  that  there  is  no  mortuary 
register  being  maintained  at  G.H  Sector  16 
Chandigarh,  whereas  actually  register  is  being 
maintained  in  Mortuary  and  that  register  has  been 
suppressed  only  with  a  view  to  conceal  the  true 
facts.  Thus  once  the  recovery  of  two  legs  and  skull 
were  doubtful,  the  entire  story  of  the  prosecution 
that  it  was  a  case  of  human  blast  caused  by 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  is  without  any  basis.  On  the 
contrary,  it  proves  that  the  true  genesis  of  the 
blast  has  been  suppressed  by  the  CBI  in  collusion 
with  Punjab  Police. 

143  Not  even  this,  it  is  alleged  by  the 
prosecution    that    PW-165,    Roop    Singh    examined  the 


279 


scene  of  crime  as  well  as  two  legs  and  skull  but  in 
his  report,  Ex.PW165/l  to  7,  he  has  not  mentioned 
this  fact  and  he  has  not  prepared  any  separate 
report  as  to  the  examination  of  two  legs  and  skull 
at  the  spot.  Even  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram  alleged  that 
he  had  seen  two  legs  and  the  skull  near  the  car  of 
the  CM  but  no  separate  recovery  memo  for  taking  the 
same  into  possession  has  been  made,  which  further 
falsify  the  factum  of  existence  and  recovery  of 
these  body  parts  at  the  spot. 

144  To  further  substantiate  this  aspect,  he 
submitted  that  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to 
show  at  what  place  these  two  legs  and  skull  were 
kept  from  31.8.1995  to  4.9.1995,  when  these  were 
handed  over  to  PW-6,  Dr.Inderjit  Diwan  for 
postmortem  examination. 

145  Not  even  this,  the  identity  of  two  legs 
and  skull  by  Harnek  Singh,  father  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  and  Chamkaur  Singh  brother  of 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  is  also  doubtful  as  it  is 
alleged  by  PW-246  that  this  identification  was  done 
by  these  persons  on  5.9.1995  at  about  4.30  PM  in 
the  mortuary  of  P.G.I  in  the  presence  of  PW-6, 
Dr.Inderjit  Diwan  vide  identification  memo, 
Ex.D99/l,  whereas  this  fact  has  been  denied  by  PW- 
6,  Dr.Inderjit  Diwan,  who  stated  that  two  legs  and 
skull  were  kept  by  him  in  the  dissection  room  of 
his    department    from    4.9.1995    to    6.11.1995,  when 


280 


those  were  handed  over  to  the  Harnek  Singh,  as  per 
the  request  of  the  C.B.I.  If  it  is  so  this  fact 
clearly  proves  that  the  alleged  two  legs  and  skull 
were  never  recovered  from  the  spot  nor  those  were 
ever  identified  by  the  father  and  brother  of 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and  a  false  story  has  been 
made  by  the  prosecution  to  introduce  human  bomb 
theory  just  to  wriggle  out  from  their  own 
inefficiency  in  the  security  of  the  deceased  CM. 

14  6  He   further   submitted  that   even  the  report 

of  PW-245,  Dr.Lalji  Singh,  Director  Centre  for 
Cellular  Molecular  Biology  Hyderabad,  Ex.PW245/7  is 
of  no  consequences  as  there  is  nothing  on  the  file 
to  show  that  he  had  ever  taken  any  sample  of 
tissues  from  the  alleged  two  legs  and  the  skull  and 
compared  the  same  with  the  blood  of  Harnek  Singh 
and  Surjit  Kaur  parents  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh, 
as  taking  of  blood  samples  of  those  two  persons  is 
highly  doubtful  because  it  is  alleged  by  PW-246, 
A.K.Chanda  that  the  blood  samples  of  Chamkaur 
Singh,  Harnek  Singh  and  Surjit  Kaur  were  taken  by 
Dr.Dalbir  Singh  at  about  4.30PM  as  mentioned  in 
the  memo,  Ex.PW99/l  in  the  presence  of  Dr.Lalji 
singh  but  Lalji  Singh  admitted  that  he  reached  at 
P.G.I  only  at  about  6.30  PM  and  then  took  the 
samples  through  the  Doctors  of  the  P.G.I.  Whereas 
the  testimony  of  PW-246,  Dr .A.K.Chanda  falsify  this 
fact.  Even  the  parents  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh 
namely   Harnek   Singh   and   Surjit   Kaur   have   not  been 


281 


examined  by  the  prosecution  on  this  aspect  to  prove 
the  factum  of  taking  of  the  samples  and  its  test  by 
the  PW-245. 

147  Not  even  this  PW-245  further  admitted 
that  out  of  the  17  parcels  taken  only  three  samples 
referred  mark  D,  E  and  F  in  the  report,  Ex.PW245/2, 
whereas  all  the  remaining  samples  mark  G  to  mark  T, 
as  mentioned  in  the  report,  Ex.PW245/2,  are  found 
to  be  unfit  for  comparison  being  highly  degraded 
and  this  fact  further  shows  that  the  samples  of 
disputed  body  parts  were  not  properly  kept  and  were 
decomposed  and  when  mark  G  to  mark  T  were 
decomposed  being  taken  from  the  same  parts,  how 
sample  D,  E  and  F  can  match,  specially  when  all  the 
samples  were  taken  from  the  same  parts,  which  were 
stored  in  a  single  container  of  formalin  and 
ethanol  and  due  to  this  DNA  had  decomposed.  At  the 
same  time  by  now  it  has  not  been  established  that 
the  DNA  test  is  a  perfect  test  specially  when  it 
has  not  been  carried  by  all  the  five  recognized 
methods  of  DNA  testing. 

148  At  the  same  time,  the  best  established 
form  of  forensic  DNA  identification  analysis  is 
restriction  fragment,  length,  polymorphisms 
analysis  known  as  RFLP  but  it  has  not  been 
conducted  in  the  present  case  and  report  of  PW-245 
is  based  on  Polymerase  chain  reaction  test,  known 
as   PCR  method,    is  not  a  full  proof  test  as   it  is  a 


282 


technique  used  for  DNA  amplification  as  admitted  by 
PW-245  and  if  it  so  report  of  PW-245  is  not 
admissible  as  a  direct  evidence  on  this  dispute. 

14  9  At    the    same    time,    even    the    dispatch  of 

samples  to  the  Hyderabad  Laboratory  is  doubtful. 
The  prosecution  has  not  brought  on  the  file  any 
dispatch  letter  but  it  was  called  from  PW-245 
during  his  cross  examination  and  exhibited  as  PW- 
245/14,  which  shows  that  there  is  no  dispatch 
number  to  show,  when  the  samples  were  forwarded  to 
CCMB  Hyderabad  and  in  what  condition.  At  the  same 
time  the  identification  cards  Ex.PW-245/3  to 
Ex.PW-245/6  are  incomplete  and  it  is  no  where 
mentioned  in  these  identification  cards  as  to  for 
what  purpose  the  samples  are  being  taken,  in  whose 
presence,  by  whom  and  all  the  columns  of  three 
forms  are  blank  and  lastly  in  the  report, 
Ex.PW245/2,  it  is  mentioned  that  the  samples  were 
received  in  the  laboratory  on  7.9.1995  whereas  it 
is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  those  were  taken 
to  the  Laboratory  by  PW-245  himself  on  8.9.1995. 
All  these  facts  shows  that  this  report  is  also 
based  on  the  whims  of  the  CBI  and  not  admissible  in 
evidence . 

150  Not  even  this,    PW-6,    Dr.Diwan  alleged  that 

he  has  also  handed  over  five  bottles  containing  the 
tissues  from  the  two  legs  and  the  skull  to  Doctor 
Lalji  Singh  but  Lalji  Singh  had  no  where  stated  so. 


283 


He  further  stated  that  no  permission  of  any 
Magistrate  and  consent  of  these  persons  were 
obtained  before  taking  their  blood  samples  and  as 
such  the  DNA  report  based  on  those  samples  is  not 
admissible  in  evidence  and  can  be  made  basis  to 
conclude  that  the  two  legs  and  the  skull  were  of 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh.  In  support  of  this  plea, 
learned  defence  ocunsel  relied  upon  Gautam  Kundu 
Verus  State  of  West  Bengal,  1993  (2) Recent  Criminal 
Report,  Criminal  ,  page  4  97,  Hira  Singh  Vs.  State 
ofU.T  2005  (4)  RCR  Criminal  page  559  and  Sakthi 
Vel  Vs.  Karpagam  2005(4)  RCR  Criminal,  page  422 

151  Learned  defence  counsel  further  submitted 
that  in  view  of  the  above  facts  &  circumstances,  it 
is  proved  on  the  file  that  it  was  not  a  case  of 
human  bomb  blast  but  it  was  a  case  of  multi  bomb 
blast  which  took  place  at  different  places  and  one 
of  these  bomb  blast  may  be  from  inside  the  car  but 
the  prosecution  has  intentionally  suppressed  the 
true  genesis  of  the  occurrence  and  put  forward  a 
tailor  made  story  of  the  human  bomb  just  to  wriggle 
out  from  the  liability  of  the  security  agencies, 
who  were  liable  for  this  blast 

152  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he  submitted 
that  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  an  anti- 
sabotage  test  was  being  done  as  and  when  the 
Carcade  of  the  CM  left  his  house  and  on  31.8.1995 
also   this    check   was    done   by   PW-40,    Salamat  Masih 


284 


but  this  fact  has  been  put  forward  by  the 
prosecution  just  to  improve  its  case  to  save  the 
security  agencies  as  it  is  admitted  case  of  PW-40 
that  a  register  of  Sabotage  check  is  being 
maintained  but  no  such  register  showing  anti 
sabotage  check  on  31.8.1995,  has  been  brought  on 
record  despite  the  fact  that  PW-40  alleged  that  it 
was  taken  by  the  CBI  authorities  whereas  it  is 
undisputed  case  of  the  prosecution  that  no  such 
test  was  done  when  the  CM  was  to  leave  the 
Secretariat . 

153  At  the  same  time,  the  most  material 
witnesses  to  give  the  true  account  of  the  genesis 
of  occurrence  was  PW-78,  D . K . Tripathy,  who  was  the 
Security  Incharge  on  duty,  being  an  officer  of  the 
SP  rank  and  he  was  the  most  important  witness,  who 
could  gave  the  true  account  of  the  sequence  of 
events  but  his  statement  was  not  recorded 
immediately  after  the  blast  despite  the  fact  that 
after  being  injured  in  blast  he  gained 
consciousness  on  the  same  night.  Whereas  his 
statement  was  recorded  for  the  first  time  on 
11.9.1995,  which  itself  shows  that  his  statement 
is  delayed  unnecessarily  to  suit  the  theory  to  be 
propounded  by  the  prosecution. 

154  Not  even  this,  PW-53,  HC  Baljit  Singh 
driver  of  the  second  car  of  the  Carcade  of  the  CM, 
which  was  immediately  after  the  car  No.  PB-08-3469, 


285 


PW-66,  Iqbal  Singh  driver  of  the  third  car  of  the 
Carcade  of  the  CM  and  PW-56,  Manojit  Pal  Singh,  a 
Security  official  of  the  CRPF  of  the  Escort  Gypsy 
were  the  four  other  material  eye  witnesses  of  the 
occurrence  and  their  statements  were  also  not 
recorded  immediately  after  the  blast,  despite  the 
fact  that  they  were  also  fit  to  make  the  statement. 
This  fact  alone  shows  that  a  false  story  giving  a 
twisted  account  of  the  occurrence  has  been 
concocted . 

155  He  further  submitted  that  in  Ganesh  Bhawan 
Patel  Versus  State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1979  Supreme 
Court,  page  135,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that 
delay  of  few  hours  simpliciter,  in  recording  the 
statements  of  eye  witnesses  may  not  by  itself 
amount  to  a  serious  infirmity  in  the  prosecution 
case  but  it  may  assume  such  a  character  if  there 
are  concomitant  circumstances  to  suggest  that  the 
investigator  was  deliberately  marking  time  with  a 
investigator  a  intention  to  decide  about  the  shape 
to  be  given  to  the  case  and  the  eye  witnesses  to  be 
introduced.  Accordingly  in  the  present  case  non 
recording  of  statement  of  above  mentioned  material 
witnesses,  immediately  after  the  blast  shows  that 
the  investigations  of  this  case  are  highly 
defective  and  tainted  leading  no  where  to  prove  the 
human  bomb  theory. 

156  To     further     substantiate     this     plea,  he 


286 


submitted  that  from  the  postmortem  reports  of  all 
the  injured  vis  a  vis  the  seat  of  their  injuries 
and  place  dead  bodies  at  the  spot  after  the  blast 
and  their  positions,  when  the  blast  took  place, 
shows  that  the  injuries  suffered  by  all  the  dead 
persons  were  not  on  account  of  a  human  bomb  blast 
but  it  was  on  account  of  multiple  bomb  blast  taken 
place  at  different  places.  Some  of  the  dead  persons 
died  because  of  the  burn  injuries,  which  are  not 
possible  in  a  blast  involving  explosives  but  is 
possible  only  in  case  of  incendiary  bomb  blast  as 
admitted  by  PW-6,  Dr.Inderjit  Diwan,  a  Forensic 
Expert.  the  Metallic  pieces  projectiles,  glass 
pieces  and  other  foreign  articles  recovered  from 
the  dead  bodies  of  dead  persons  coupled  with  the 
seat  of  injuries  and  nature  of  injuries  clearly 
shows  that  these  injuries  and  death  because  of 
those  injuries  is  not  possible  in  a  blast  involving 
explosives.  Thus,  this  fact  also  shows  that  the 
true  genesis  of  the  occurrence  and  the  blast  has 
been  suppressed  and  it  was  only  for  this  purpose 
that  the  photographs  taken  by  the  police 
photographers  of  the  Chandigarh  Police,  as  admitted 
by  PW-240  and  photographs  taken  by  the  CBI 
Photographer  have  not  been  made  part  of  the  record 
and  even  the  video  film  prepared  at  the  spot  to 
show  the  scene  of  crime  and  its  genesis  has  been 
suppressed . 

157  He      further      submitted      that      the  most 


287 


material  incriminating  evidence  to  show  the  nature 
of  blast,  was  the  three  cars  of  the  Carcade  of  the 
CM  along  with  the  other  damaged  vehicles  but  no 
report  as  to  their  mechanical  examination  or  their 
inspection  to  assess  the  loss  and  the  nature  of 
blast  has  been  brought  on  the  file  which  further 
shows  that  the  very  story  put  forward  by  the 
prosecution  that  this  blast  was  because  of  human 
bomb  blast  has  not  been  proved. 

158  To  support  this  he  submitted  that  in 
Bhagirath  Versus  State  of  HP,   1976  CRR  page  116,  it 

was  settled  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  prosecution  to  prove  that  very 
story  which  was  forwarded  in  the  charge  sheet  and 
no  new  story  can  be  created  by  the  court.  As  such, 
he  submitted  that  this  fact  further  shows  that  the 
entire  story  of  the  prosecution  is  based  on 
concocted  facts. 

159  To  further  substantiate  their  defence, 
learned  counsel  for  the  accused  submitted  that  the 
second  most  material  evidence  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  is  the  recovery  of  car  No.  DBA-9598, 
which  is  exhibited  as  Ex.P76,  from  the  spot  and  its 
link  with  the  accused  persons.  However,  the 
prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to  prove  the 
recovery  of  the  car  DBA  9598  from  the  spot  and  its 
link  with  the  accused  persons. 


288 


160  To  fortify  his  plea,  he  submitted  that  it 
is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  PW-240,  when 
visited  the  spot  after  the  blast,  an  Ambassador 
Car,  DBA-9598,  Ex.P76,  of  white  colour  was  found 
parked  abandoned  in  the  parking  area  toward  the 
Haryana  Secretariat  and  on  inspection,  he  found 
that  the  said  car  has  been  recently  painted  and  he 
suspected  that  the  said  car  might  have  been  used  or 
connected  with  the  commission  of  the  crime  of  Bomb 
blast  and  then  he  put  a  guard  to  guard  the  car. 

161  Thereafter  on  the  same  evening  when  he 
searched  the  car  he  found  various  papers  including 
the  registration  certificate  mark  WW,  Insurance 
Cover,  a  slip  containing  some  writing  in  Punjabi,  a 
small  battery  and  took  all  the  articles  into 
possession  as  per  the  memo,  Ex.PW177/7  and  the  car 
along  with  bunch  of  keys  were  also  taken  into 
possession  as  per  separate  seizure  memo,  Ex.PW177/6 
and  then  brought  the  car  to  the  Police  Station  and 
thereafter  on  1.9.1995,  when  the  CBI  took  over  the 
investigation,  the  said  car  was  examined  by  PW-178, 
S.K.Chadha  in  the  presence  of  Surinder  Pal  and 
memo,  Ex.PW178/l  was  prepared  vide  which  some 
chance  prints  of  finger  prints  etc  were  lifted 
along  with  the  photographs  and  the  rear  view  mirror 
of  the  car  was  also  taken  into  possession  for  the 
examination  in  the  Laboratory. 

162  However,     a       totally    contradictory  story 


289 


has  been  put  forward  by  PW-178  in  this  regard.  As 
per  this  witness  he  was  directed  by  the  CBI  on 
31.8.1995  to  visit  the  scene  of  occurrence  and 
inspect  the  car  and  he  accordingly  reached 
Chandigarh  on  1.9.1995  and  inspected  the  car 
between  11  a.m     to  12  noon. 

163  At  the  same  time,  it  is  admitted  case  of 
PW-240,  Nanha  Ram,  that  when  he  examined  the  car, 
he  took  the  photographs  of  the  car  with  the  help  of 
Police  photographers  but  those  photographs  were  not 
made  part  of  the  record.  No  independent  witness  was 
joined  during  the  inspection  of  the  car  either  by 
PW-240,  Nanha  Ram  or  by  PW-245,  S.K.Chadha  and  even 
that  car  was  not  kept  in  proper  custody  till  the 
trial.  It  is  alleged  that  PW-178  inspected  the  car 
in  the  presence  of  PW-190,  ASI  Ranjit  Singh. 
However,  as  per  the  DDRs,  copies  of  which  are 
Ex.D8/A  and  D8/B,  ASI  Ranjit  Singh  was  not  present 
in  the  police  Station  during  the  time  of  inspection 
of  car  but  he  has  been  shown  to  be  on  patrolling. 

164  No  entry  in  the  malkhana  register 
regarding  the  custody  of  the  car  has  been  brought 
on  the  record.  No  DDR  has  been  recorded  to  show  the 
inspection  of  the  Car  by  the  CBI  in  Police  Station 
as  required  under  the  rules.  As  such  the  recovery 
of  the  car  from  the  spot  is  highly  doubtful. 

165  Not  even  this,   the  plea  of  the  prosecution 


290 


that  some  of  the  finger  prints  lifted  from  the  car 
were  found  to  be  that  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh 
and  Balwant  Singh  as  per  PW-178,  S.K.Chadha  is  also 
not  proved  on  the  file.  First  of  all  it  is  admitted 
case  of  the  prosecution  that  both  the  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  were  constable 
in  the  Punjab  Police  and  as  such  the  prosecution 
was  having  admitted  specimen  signatures  and  hand 
writings  of  both  these  accused  persons  as  well  as 
their  finger  prints  and  the  same  can  be  got 
compared  with  the  chance  prints  lifted  from  the 
alleged  car  but  no  such  recourse  was  taken  by  the 
prosecution.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  alleged  that 
the  specific  finger  prints  of  Lakhwinder  Singh  and 
Balwanit  Singh  were  taken  by  PW-178  and  then  those 
were  compared  with  the  disputed  prints  lifted  from 
the  spot  but  again  the  taking  of  specimen  finger 
prints  is  not  proved  on  the  file  as  per  the 
requirements  of  the  law. 

166  To    substantiate    this    plea,    he  submitted 

that  it  is  admitted  case  of  the  prosecution  that 
all  the  finger  prints  of  both  these  accused  person 
is  were  taken  without  their  consent  and  even 
without  the  permission  of  any  Magistrate  as 
required  under  the  law  and  as  such  these  finger 
prints  can  not  be  made  basis  to  link  these  accused 
persons  with  the  car.  In  support  of  this  plea,  he 
has  relied  upon  AIR  1997  Supreme  Court  page  2960. 


291 


167  At  the  same  time,  there  is  no  evidence  on 
the  file  that  these  finger  prints  were  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  as  there  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  to  show  that  these  were  taken 
either  by  PW-178,  S.K.Chadha  himself  or  in  his 
presence . 

168  Not  even  this,  the  report  of  PW-178, 
S.K.Chadha  as  to  the  comparison  of  the  chance 
finger  prints  with  the  admitted  finger  prints  of 
both  the  accused  persons  and  matching  the  same  is 
highly  doubtful  because  it  is  admitted  case  of  PW- 
178  that  the  admitted  finger  prints  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  is  of  whorl  type.  Whereas  the 
disputed  chance  print  were  not  of  this  type  as 
these  were  fragmentary.  Similarly  the  pattern  of 
finger  prints  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  found 
to  be  of  double  loop  composite  type  whereas  the 
chance  prints  were  found  to  be  of  different  pattern 
and  if  the  pattern  of  both  the  thumb  impressions 
were  not  the  same,  there  was  no  guestion  of  saying 
that  these  matches  with  the  chance  print  taken  from 
the  car. 

169  In  support  of  this  plea,  they  relied  upon 
smt.Kamla  Kanwar  Versus  Rattan  Lai,  AIR  1971 
Allahabad  page  304,  wherein  it  was  held  by  the 
Hon'ble  High  Court  that  to  compare  the  thumb 
impression  first  of  all  the  pattern  should  be 
examined    and    if    the    pattern    are    different    it  is 


292 


conclusive  proof  that  the  impressions  are  of 
different  persons  and  only  if  the  pattern  matches 
with  the  disputed  the  core  and  delta  should  be 
located.  Accordingly  in  the  present  case  once  the 
pattern  of  both  the  disputed  and  the  admitted 
finger  prints  were  found  to  be  of  different 
patterns,  there  is  no  question  of  saying  that  these 
are  similar  to  each  other.  Thus,  even  the  report  of 
PW-178,  S.K.Chadha,  Finger  Print  Expert, 
Ex.PW178/5,  proves  in  vain  to  match  the  finger 
prints  with  that  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh. 

170  Accordingly  he  submitted  that  the  entire 
story  of  the  prosecution  that  the  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  was  also  present  at  the 
Secretariat  along  with  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Dilawar  Singh  for  the  purpose  of  bomb  blast  is 
highly  doubtful  and  can  not  be  made  basis  to  link 
these  accused  persons  with  this  offence. 

171  Learned  defence  counsel  further  submitted 
that  one  of  the  other  material  circumstances  put 
forward  by  the  prosecution  to  link  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  (since 
proclaimed  offender) ,  with  the  case  in  hand  is  that 
both  of  them  purchased  Car  bearing  registration  No. 
DBA-9598  from  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  and  at  that  time 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  represented  himself  as 
Basant  Singh  and  that  car  was  brought  to  Chandigarh 


293 


and  after  repainting  the  same  in  white  colour,  the 
same  was  used  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  to  reach  Punjab  and 
Haryana  Civil  Secretariat  to  hit  the  target. 
However,  the  prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to 
prove  both  these  facts  with  cogent  and  reliable 
evidence.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  so  many 
circumstances  which  shows  that  even  if  it  is 
presumed  that  the  car  in  question  has  been  used  in 
the  commission  of  crime, there  is  no  evidence  to  say 
that  it  was  purchased  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara. 

172  Before  submitting  further,  learned  defence 
counsel  submitted  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  is 
now  a  proclaimed  offender  as  such,  the  alleged 
confession  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  can  not  be  taken 
into  consideration  either  against  him  or  against 
any  of  the  remaining  accused  persons,  as  per  law 
laid  by  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  Eshar  Singh 
Vs.  State  of  Andhara  Pradesh,  AIR  2004,  S.C.  Page 
3030. 

173  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he  submitted 
that  it  is  admitted  case  of  the  prosecution  that 
wife  of  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  was  the  registered  owner 
of  the  Car  DBA-9598  and  the  CBI  got  the  information 
on  31.8.1995  itself  that  this  car  has  been  used  in 
the  commission  of  the  crime  and  accordingly  Delhi 
Police   was    asked   to    trace    the   whereabouts    of  the 


294 


registered  owner  and  took  further  steps.  It  is 
further  admitted  that  1.9.1995  itself  the  Police 
came  to  know  that  PW-32  is  the  owner  of  the  Car  and 
he  was  associated  in  the  investigations  of  the  case 
by  Shri  G.N.Gupta,  DSP  but  there  is  no  explanation 
on  the  file  that  why  the  said  G.N.Gupta  has  not 
been  examined  as  a  witness  of  the  prosecution. 

174  In  addition  to  this,    it   is   also  admitted 

case  of  the  prosecution  that  from  1.9.1995  to 
3.9.1995,  PW-32  was  interrogated  by  the  Delhi 
Police  but  he  was  never  asked  to  give  the  details 
of  the  persons  to  whom  he  sold  the  car  and  to 
produce  the  documents  in  support  of  that.  It  was 
only  on  16.9.1995,  when  PW-32  was  called  upon  to 
hand  over  the  documents  and  this  date  was 
intentionally  introduced  because  prior  to  that  the 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was  already  arrested  on 
13.9.1995  and  the  documents  of  the  car,  Ex.PW32/l 
to  Ex.PW32/7  were  not  existing  between  1.9.1995  to 
20.9.1995  and  those  were  fabricated  after  the 
arrest  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  then  shown 
to  have  been  produced  by  PW-32  on  20.9.1995.  There 
is  no  explanation  on  the  file  as  to  why  PW-32  has 
not  produced  all  the  documents  relating  to  the 
alleged  sale  of  the  car  to  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  on 
1.9.1995  itself.  Even  G.N.Gupta  who  has  recorded 
the  statement  of  S.K.Dutta  has  not  been  examined  to 
explain  this  fact. 


295 


175  At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  proved  on 
the  file  that  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  was  residing  in  a 
Flat  of  Sahirdya  Apartments  and  a  visitor  register 
was  being  maintained  at  the  entry  gate  of  the 
colony  but  that  register  has  not  been  taken  into 
possession  to  show  that  somebody  has  visited 
S.K.Dutta  on  the  alleged  day  and  time.  Even  when 
this  record  was  summoned  in  the  defence,  it  was  not 
produced  by  the  concerned  colony  alleging  that  it 
was  never  maintained  at  the  relevant  time.  On  the 
contrary  DW-20,  P.K.Ghosh,  the  present  member  of 
the  society,  admitted  that  at  present  a  visitor 
register  is  being  maintained.  Thus  this  fact 
further  shows  that  the  said  register  has  been 
suppressed  intentionally  as  none  of  the  accused 
ever  visited  the  house  of  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta. 

176  At  the  same  time,  both  these  accused 
persons  have  been  linked  with  the  case  on  the 
basis  of  identity  of  the  photographs  by  PW-32, 
S.K.Dutta,  which  is  of  no  conseguences  because  the 
identity  by  photographs  is  not  admissible  as 
evidence  as  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in 
Laxmi  Pat  Choaria  Vs.  State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR 
1968,  Supreme  Court,  page  938  where  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  held  that  the  ability  of  the  witness  to 
identity  a  suspect  should  be  tested  without  showing 
his  photographs  or  furnishing  him  any  other  fact 
for  identification  and  if  the  photographs  of  the 
suspect  is  already  shown  before  the  identification, 


296 


such  an  identification  is  worthless. 

177  As  such,  he  submitted  that  the  identity  of 
the  photographs  by  PW-32  is  also  not  relevant  and 
can  be  made  basis  to  link  these  accused  persons.  At 
the  same  time,  no  test  identification  parade  was 
conducted  to  establish  the  identity  of  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  from  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  as  required 
under  the  law.  PW-244,  R.S.Dhankar,  who  has 
arrested  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  admitted 
that  he  was  not  even  aware  about  the  identity  of 
S.K.Dutta,  when  he  arrested  the  accused,  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  on  13.9.1995  and  only  on  13.9.1995  he 
came  to  know  about  this  fact  and  if  it  was  so  it 
was  his  duty  to  associate  S.K.Dutta  for  the 
identity  of  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara.  At  the 
same  time,  the  alleged  pointing  out  of  the  house  of 
PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  as 
per  his  alleged  disclosure  statement  is  not 
admissible  being  against  the  provision  of  Section 
27  of  the  Evidence  Act. 

178  At  the  same  time,  it  is  alleged  that  two 
independent  witnesses  were  associated  during  the 
pointing  out  of  the  house  of  PW-32,  however, 
signatures  of  none  of  these  witnesses  were  taken 
on  the  pointing  out  memo  which  further  shows  that 
the  said  pointing  memo  is  of  no  consequence  and  can 
not  be  made  basis  to  link  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara    with    the    purchase    of    car.     As     far    as  the 


297 


identity  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  in  the  court  is  concerned  that  is  also 
of  no  consequence  as  PW-32  has  identified  these 
accused  persons  in  the  court  for  the  first  time  and 
as  such  this  fact  is  also  not  admissible  in 
evidence . 

179  Last  but  not  least,  he  submitted  that  no 
document  whatsoever  has  been  recovered  from  the 
possession  of  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  to  show 
that  he  had  purchased  the  Car,  DBA-9598  from  PW-32 
and  as  stated  earlier  no  independent  witness  was 
joined  during  the  alleged  pointing  out  of  the  house 
of  PW-32  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  from  the 
neighbourhood  of  that  colony  and  even  R.S.Dhankar 
failed  to  explain  whether  there  was  any  watchman  in 
the  colony  and  whether  he  had  joined  any  other 
witness  of  the  colony.  Not  even  this,  he  had  also 
not  recorded  the  statement  of  any  of  the  two 
witnesses  allegedly  joined  during  the  pointing  out 
of  the  house  of  PW-32,  which  clearly  shows  that 
none  of  these  witnesses  were  actually  present  at 
the  time  of  alleged  identification  and  false  story 
has  been  put  forward. 

180  At  the  same  time,  PW-244  has  failed  to 
explain  how  he  came  to  know  about  the  name  and 
identity  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara.  At  one  point 
of  time  he  alleged  that  he  arrested  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara       on       the       information       given       by  Chief 


298 


Investigating  Officer  S.K.Saxena,  however, 
Sh . S . K . Saxena  has  denied  this  fact  and  if  it  is  so 
there  is  no  link  evidence  on  the  file  to  show  how 
the  name  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  comes  on  the  record 
and  how  he  has  arrested.  Thus,  this  fact  further 
shows  all  the  proceedings  of  the  C.B.I  regarding 
the  arrest  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  his  link  with 
the  car  are  fabricated  and  manipulated  just  to 
falsely  implicate  him  in  this  case  and  this 
circumstance  can  not  be  taken  into  consideration 
for  any  purpose  whatsoever. 

181  He  further  submitted  that  the 
identification  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  by 
PW-32  by  way  of  his  photo  graph,  Ex.PW32/9,  is  also 
of  no  consequences  as  stated  earlier.  Thus,  the 
presence  and  identity  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  along  with  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  is  also  highly 
doubtful . 

182  Learned  defence  counsel  further  submitted 
that  since  the  entire  case  of  the  prosecution  was 
based  on  circumstantial  evidence,  as  such,  the 
prosecution  was  required  to  prove  the  proper 
custody  of  the  incriminating  evidence  collected 
from  the  scene  of  crime  and  the  case  property  till 
it  reaches  the  experts,  to  rely  upon  the  reports  of 
the  experts.  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he 
submitted  that  during  the  course  of  cross 
examination    of    240    to    248,    who    have  investigated 


299 


the  case  at  one  stage  or  other,  it  is  undisputed 
case  of  the  prosecution  that  samples  of 
incriminating  articles  recovered  from  the  spot 
change  hands  from  one  person  to  other  person  and 
from  one  place  to  other  place  and  the  entire  case 
property  right  from  the  stage  of  recovery  till  it 
reaches  at  the  hands  of  experts  remains  in  the 
possession  of  different  persons  at  different  places 
and  if  it  was  so  it  was  the  duty  of  the  prosecution 
to  prove  the  proper  custody  and  intactness  of  the 
case  property  to  complete  the  link  evidence  to  link 
the  accused  persons  with  the  commission  of  the 
crime  and  factum  of  conspiracy. 

183  However,  the  prosecution  has  miserably 
failed  to  bring  any  link  evidence  on  the  file  to 
prove  the  proper  custody  and  intactness  of  the  said 
articles  during  the  investigation  till  the  time  it 
was  deposited  with  the  police  officials  and  then 
till  the  time  it  was  deposited  with  the  experts. 

184  He  further  submitted  that  as  held  by 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State  of  Rajasthan  Vs.  Daulat 
Ram,  AIR  1980  Supreme  Court,  page  1314  and  as 
reiterated  by  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  in  Om 
Parkash  Vs.  State  of  Haryana,  1999  (1)  RCR  Criminal 
page  771;  and  Balwant  Singh  Vs.  State  of  Punjab, 
1997  (4)  RCR  Criminal  page  824,  that  where  the 
prosecution  has  failed  to  examine  all  those  various 
persons   with   whom   the    case   property   remain  during 


300 


the  investigation  and  trial  the  identity  of  such 
case  property  becomes  doubtful  and  it  can  not  be 
considered  to  convict  the  accused. 

185  Accordingly  in  the  present  case,  it  is 
admitted  case  of  prosecution  that  as  and  when  any 
incriminating  articles  were  recovered  either  from 
the  scene  of  crime  or  from  the  accused  persons 
those  were  deposited  in  the  malkhana  of  Chandigarh 
Police  or  in  the  CBI  malkhana  and  thereafter  those 
articles  were  sent  to  various  experts  and  if  it  was 
so,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  prosecution  to  examine 
all  those  witnesses,  who  were  concerned  with  the 
custody  of  the  case  property  from  the  stage  of  its 
recovery  till  it  reaches  the  experts. 

186  He  further  submitted  that  in  this  case, 
it  is  admitted  case  of  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram,  the  first 
Investigating  Officer  of  Chandigarh  Police, and  PW- 
248,  S.N.Saxena  that  the  entire  incriminating 
articles  recovered  from  the  spot  were  deposited  in 
the  malkhana  but  both  of  them  had  failed  to  explain 
the  place  of  that  malkhana  and  the  name  of  that 
person.  No  witness  have  been  examined  and  no 
affidavit  of  any  such  witness  has  been  brought  on 
the  record  to  show  the  depositing  of  case  property 
and  its  intactness  till  it  remained  in  their 
possession.  The  incriminating  articles  taken  into 
possession  vide  seizure  memo,  Ex.PW228/l  on 
2.9.1995  were   deposited  with  the  CFSL  on  21.9.1995 


301 


but  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  show  where 
these  articles  remained  from  3.9.1995  to  21.9.1995 
and  who  took  these  articles  to  the  expert  and  in 
what  manner. 

187  Similarly,  no  evidence  has  been  brought 
on  the  file  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  seals  used 
for  sealing  those  articles.  During  the  trial  case 
property  was  produced  by  the  MHC,  Police  Station 
North  Chandigarh,  which  is  now  Sector  3,  Chandigarh 
but  it  is  undisputed  case  of  the  prosecution  that 
the  case  was  investigated  by  the  CBI  and  if  it  was 
so  the  property  should  have  been  kept  in  the 
malkhana  of  CBI  Police  Station. 

188  Similarly,  there  is  no  evidence  on  the 
file  to  show  that  during  the  time  the  case  property 
were  examined  by  various  experts  where  it  remains 
and  with  whom.  If  it  is  the  factual  position,  none 
of  the  incriminating  articles  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  in  support  of  its  story  and  can  be 
taken  into  consideration  to  link  any  of  the  accused 
persons  with  this  case  and  the  case  of  the 
prosecution  is  liable  to  be  disbelieved  on  this 
aspect  alone  and  it  further  shows  that  no  real 
investigations  were  conducted  and  the  entire  case 
is  framed  by  the  prosecution  after  the  arrest  of 
the  accused  persons  for  which  the  benefit  of  doubt 
must  be  given  to  the  accused  persons . 


302 


189.  As  far  as  the  expert  evidence  is 
concerned,  the  learned  defence  counsel  submitted 
that  as  stated  earlier  the  report  of  none  of  the 
experts  examined  by  the  prosecution  is  admissible 
in  evidence.  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he 
submitted  that  one  of  the  reports  relied  upon  by 
the  prosecution  is,  Ex.PW248/2,  report  of 
Dr.Balinder  Kaur,  who  has  allegedly  inspected  the 
scene  of  crime  and  took  into  possession  certain 
incriminating  articles  and  then  examined  the  same. 
However,  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  prove 
that  this  expert  ever  visited  the  scene  of  crime 
or  lifted  anything  from  the  spot.  No  doubt,  it  is 
alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  immediately  after 
the  occurrence  Experts  of  FSL  Punjab,  CFSL  Delhi 
and  CFSL  Chandigarh  were  called  at  the  spot  to 
assess  the  scene  of  crime  and  one  of  those  experts 
was  Doctor  Balinder  Kaur,  who  allegedly  reached  at 
the  spot  at  10.30  a.m  on  01.9.1995,  when  she 
examined  the  spot  and  took  into  possession  the 
articles  in  the  presence  of  SI  Ved  Parkash. 
However,  no  recovery  memo  showing  the  recovery  of 
incriminating  articles  by  this  witness  has  been 
prepared  to  show  what  was  picked  by  her  from  the 
spot,  how  it  was  picked  and  how  it  was  packed  and 
where  it  was  kept. 

190.  It  is  admitted  case  of  the  prosecution 
that  PWs  175  to  179  were  the  Police  officials  of 
Chandigarh    Police,    who    were    present    at    the  spot 


303 


from  31.8.1995  to  3.9.1995  but  none  of  those 
witnesses  have  stated  that  Balinder  Kaur  inspected 
the  spot.  As  per  PW-179,  SI  Ved  Parkash,  he 
deposited  27  incriminating  articles  lifted  from  the 
spot  with  CFSL,  Chandigarh  at  about  11.00  a.m, 
whereas  PW-248,  Chief  Investigating  Officer  stated 
that  the  recovery  proceedings  were  started  in  the 
after  noon  only  if  it  was  so  how  PW-179  was  present 
at  the  spot  and  how  some  incriminating  articles 
were  lifted  at  the  spot  is  a  fact  which  remain 
unexplained  on  the  file  and  it  shows  that  report  of 
Balinder  Kaur  is  not  admissible  in  evidence.  Even 
she  had  failed  to  step  into  the  witness  box  to 
prove  this  report  and  to  face  cross  examination  as 
to  the  recovery  of  the  incriminating  articles  and 
the  inspection  of  the  scene  of  the  crime.  Thus, 
this  evidence  is  a  waste  paper  and  liable  to  be 
ignored . 

191.  He     further     submitted     that     one     of  the 

circumstantial  evidence  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  is  the  recovery  of  belt,  Ex.P97  and  its 
link  with  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh.  However,  the  recovery  of  belt  is 
highly  doubtful.  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he 
submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution 
that  on  10.9.1995,  DSP  Devi  Singh  has  recovered  the 
Scooter  from  Pritam  Cycle  Stand,  Bus  Stand, Patiala 
in  the  presence  of  PW-90,  D.P.Singh  and  PW-91,  Ram 
Singh  and  on  search  of  the  dickey,   belt,  Ex.P97,was 


304 


recovered  and  this  belt  was  same  belt  which  was  got 
stitched  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh 
from  PW-75,    Jasbir  Singh. 

192.  However,  the  prosecution  has  miserably 
failed  to  prove  this  fact  on  the  file.  First  of 
all,  DSP  Devi  Singh,  who  has  recovered  this  belt 
has  not  been  examined  for  the  reason  known  to  the 
Police.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  alleged  that  this 
belt  was  sent  to  CFSL  on  10.10.1995  despite  the 
fact  that  it  was  recovered  on  10.9.1995.  Where  it 
remained  for  the  period  10.09.1995  to  10.10.1995 
and  with  whom  is  a  fact,  which  remained  unexplained 
on  the  file.  No  witness  of  any  malkhana  has  been 
examined  to  prove  the  custody  of  this  belt  and  its 
intactness.  As  such,  this  evidence  is  also 
inadmissible  and  can  not  be  considered  for  any 
purpose  whatsoever. 

193.  He  further  submitted  that  similarly 
recovery  of  the  battery  Ex.P153  from  the  Car  No. 
DBA-9598  has  also  no  relevancy  with  this  case  as  it 
was  neither  sealed  nor  it  has  any  concern  with  the 
factual  aspect  of  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  the 
entire  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  on  1.9.1995 
a  remote  control  device  has  been  used  for  the  blast 
and  it  has  been  recovered  from  the  spot  and  this 
fact  was  duly  published  in  the  news  paper  "The 
Tribune"  dated  1.9.1995,  copy  of  which  is, 
Ex . PW240/D-A,    as   well    as    in    "Hindustan   Times"  but 


305 


that  remote  control  device  has  not  been  made  part 
of  the  record  and  as  such  report  of  the  expert,  PW 
165,  exhibited  as  PW  165/4,  as  to  the  battery,  is 
also  an  inadmissible  piece  of  evidence. 

194.  Similarly,  he  further  submitted  that  the 
report  of  PW-160,  R.S.Verma,  Ex.PW160/l  as  to  the 
traces  of  the  RDX  on  the  articles  recovered  from 
the  house  of  accused  Gurmit  Singh  is  also  not 
admissible  in  evidence  as  the  recovery  of  these 
articles  is  highly  doubtful.  To  substantiate  this 
plea,  he  submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by  the 
prosecution  that  on  8.9.1995  when  the  search  of  the 
room  of  accused  Gurmit  Singh  was  conducted,  some 
incriminating  articles  including  card  board,  news 
paper  etc  were  recovered  in  the  presence  of  PW-160, 
R.S.Verma  and  some  other  witnesses.  But  the 
recovery  memo  of  the  alleged  proceeding,  Ex.PW68/B 
is  not  signed  by  Dr . R. S . Verma,  which  shows  that  he 
was  not  at  all  present  during  these  recovery 
proceedings . 

195.  Similarly  report  of  PW-165,  Roop  Singh, 
Ex.PW165/5,  showing  the  presence  of  traces  of  RDX 
on  the  news  paper  pieces,  which,  is  Article-Ex . P88, 
is  also  inadmissible  because  it  is  admitted  case  of 
PW  165,  Roop  Singh  that  this  article  was  received 
by  him  on  8.11.1995  and  there  is  no  evidence  on  the 
file  to  show  that  where  it  remains  from  8.9.1995 
to    8.11.1995    and    with    whom.    Not    even    this,  the 


306 


report,  Ex.PW165/l,  regarding  examination  of  27 
parcels  is  also  not  admissible  in  evidence  as  these 
articles  were  received  in  CFSL  Delhi  on  21.9.1995 
despite  the  fact  that  these  were  recovered  from  the 
spot  on  3.9.1995  and  there  is  no  evidence  as  to 
where  these  articles  remain  during  this  period  that 
to  as  intact. 


196.  Learned   defence   counsel    further  submitted 

that  the  main  plank  of  the  arguments  of  learned 
Public  Prosecutors  is  that  the  conspiracy  of  this 
case  was  hatched  by  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 
in  Pakistan  and  to  prove  this  fact  the  prosecution 
has  relied  upon  documents  Ex.P134  to  Ex.P150. 
However,  there  is  not  even  iota  of  evidence  on  the 
file  to  prove  this  fact.  None  of  248  witnesses  of 
prosecution  could  even  say  single  word  showing  the 
involvement  of  Pakistan  in  this  crime  in  any  manner 
either  directly  or  indirectly.  Even  none  of  the 
Investigating  Officers  of  the  prosecution  has  given 
even  passing  remarks  on  this  aspect. 


197.  On  the   contrary,    from  the  evidence   led  by 

the  prosecution,  if  at  all  any  conspiracy  is  put 
forward  it  is  alleged  that  it  has  been  hatched  in 
Norway,  England,  Germany  and  Canada.  There  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  that  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and 
Mehal  Singh  are  based  in  Pakistan.  On  the  contrary 
the  entire  evidence  of  the  prosecution  suggests 
that    this    conspiracy    was    either    made    by  accused 


307 


Balwant  Singh  personally  to  kill  Beant  Singh,  for 
which  he  took  the  help  of  accused  Harjit  Singh. 
Even  in  the  confession  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  it  is 
alleged  that  accused  Paramjit  had  told  him  that 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  came  from  Pakistan  and 
told  to  kill  Beant  Singh  without  mentioning 
anything  about  the  involvement  of  Pakistan  or  its 
role  . 

198.  At  the  same  time,  all  the  prosecution 
witnesses  examined  to  link  the  accused  persons  with 
this  conspiracy  including  PW-63,  Avtar  Singh, 
landlord  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  PW-121,  STD 
booth  owner  of  Ghaziabad,  PW-122,  Bhupinder  Singh 
PCO  owner,  PW-123,  Harvinder  Singh,  PW-124,  PW-125, 
PW-127,  PW-130,  PW-132,  PW-133,  PW-134,  PW-135,  PW- 
136  and  PW-140  have  alleged  that  all  the  calls  made 
by  the  accused  persons  were  either  to  Germany  or 
Norway  or  UK  and  no  call  was  ever  made  to  Pakistan, 
which  further  shows  that  the  entire  story  of  the 
prosecution  as  to  hatching  of  conspiracy  in 
Pakistan  is  baseless. 

199.  The  testimony  of  PW-100,  Dilbagh  Singh, 
who  brought  the  copies  of  documents,  Ex.P134  to 
Ex.P150,  is  of  no  conseguences  as  no  source  of 
these  documents  have  been  brought  on  the  file  and 
as  such  these  documents  have  not  been  proved  on 
the  file  as  per  the  requirement  of  law.  No  author 
of    these    documents    has    come    forward    to   prove  its 


308 


contents .  On  the  contrary  these  documents  are  the 
copies  of  some  documents  and  it  is  admitted  case  of 
PW-100,  Dilbagh  Singh  that  he  had  not  kept  any 
record  as  to  the  source  of  these  documents  and  he 
also  admitted  that  he  has  no  information  from  where 
these  documents  were  received  and  from  what 
channel . 

200.  If  it  is  so,  the  entire  testimony  of  PW- 
100  is  based  on  hearsay  and  as  such  is  not 
admissible  in  evidence  as  settled  by  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  in  Sakattar  Singh  Vs.  State  of  Haryana, 
2004  (11)  Supreme  Court  Cases,  page  291,  where  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  court  held  that  where  the  statement  of 
witness  is  based  not  on  his  personal  knowledge  but 
he  heard  from  others  it  is  not  admissible. 
Similarly  in  Smt.Kunti  Devi  Vs.  Radhey  Sham,  AIR, 
1978  Allahabad,  page  185,  the  Hon'ble  Allahabad 
High  Court  held  that  the  mere  fact  are  that  the 
documents  are  forthcoming  from  a  Govt  Department 
and  bear  its  seal  will  not  dispense  with  the 
necessity  of  formally  proving  those  documents. 
Similar  Principle  was  reiterated  by  the  Calcutta 
High  Court  in  Kamal  Kanto  Dass  Versus  The  State, 
AIR  1959  Calcutta,  Page  342  and  a  full  Bench  of 
Rajasthan  Hon'ble  High  Court  in  Sabir  Mohd  Versus 
State  of  Rajasthan,   1996   (2)RCR  page  23. 

201.  Similarly  he  further  submitted  that  it  is 
alleged    by     the     prosecution     that     Babbar  Khalsa 


309 


International  is  a  terrorist  organization  based  in 
Pakistan  and  it  hatched  this  conspiracy.  However, 
no  notification  etc  as  issued  under  the  provision 
of  Unlawful  Activity  Preventions  Act,  1967  has  been 
brought  on  the  file  to  show  that  it  has  been 
declared  as  a  unlawful  organization  and  banned.  At 
the  same  time,  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to 
show  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  was  the 
member  of  this  organization. 


202.  Similarly  the   statements   of   PW-35   and  PW- 

38,  who  brought  the  copies  of  the  fax  message  mark 
AAA,  DDD  and  EEE  is  also  not  admissible  in 
evidence,  to  prove  this  fact  as  no  source  of  these 
fax  messages  have  been  proved  on  the  file  nor  these 
were  verified  by  the  CBI  to  confirm  its  source  and 
authenticity.  The  testimony  of  PW-207  and  PW-209  to 
identify  the  signatures  of  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal 
Singh  is  also  highly  doubtful  as  the  original 
documents  are  not  shown  to  them  and  it  is  not 
possible  for  them  to  identify  the  hand  writing  and 
signatures  after  a  gap  of  25  years.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  admitted  case  of  PW-241,  Surinder  Pal 
Singh,  DSP  that  the  original  record  of  society  with 
the  signatures  of  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  were 
available  but  those  were  not  taken  into  possession, 
as  such  there  is  no  direct  evidence  on  the  file  to 
prove  the  association  of  both  these  witnesses  PW- 
207  and  PW-209  with  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 
and   as    such   this    plea    of   prosecution    is    also  not 


310 


admissible  and  liable  to  be  discarded. 


203  Lastly  learned  defence  counsel  took  up  the 

case  of  each  of  the  accused  persons  one  by  one 
facing  trial  before  this  court  and  submitted  that 
there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  prove  that  any 
of  the  accused  persons  facing  trial  in  this  case 
except  accused  Balwant  Singh  have  been  linked  with 
the  factum  of  conspiracy  and  are  thus  liable  to  be 
acquitted . 

204.  To    substantiate    this    plea    first    of  all 

learned  counsel  for  the  accused  took  up  the  case  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh  and  submitted  that  only 
evidence  against  this  accused  is  on  the  basis  of 
disclosure  statement  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
who  alleged  that  some  part  of  the  RDX  brought  by 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  was  kept  in  the  house  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh.  And  when  the  accused  Navjot 
Singh  was  arrested  and  his  house  was  searched, 
although  no  recovery  of  any  contraband  article  was 
made  but  some  literature  was  recovered  which  shows 
that  he  was  part  and  parcel  of  this  conspiracy. 
However,  prosecution  has  failed  to  bring  any  cogent 
evidence  to  prove  that  this  accused  was  ever 
associated  with  any  of  the  other  accused  persons 
for  the  commission  of  this  offence  and  he  was 
having  any  concern  with  this  offence. 

205  To   bring   home    this    fact,    learned  counsel 


311 


for  the  accused  Navjot  Singh  submitted  that  PW-242, 
R.S.Dhankar,  Investigating     Officer,      who  has 

arrested  the  accused  Navjot  Singh,  alleged  that  he 
arrested  the  accused  as  per  the  directions  of  the 
Chief  Investigating  Officer,  on  the  basis  of  the 
evidence  collected  on  the  file  and  on  the  basis  of 
disclosure  statement  made  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  on  13.9.1995.  However,  PW-248,  S.N.Saxena 
admitted  that  only  PW-244,  R.S.Dhankar  knows  about 
the  evidence  against  Navjot  Singh  and  he  had  not 
given  any  search  warrant  or  authorization  to 
R.S.Dhankar  to  arrest  and  search  the  house  of  the 
accused  Navjot  Singh,  whereas  PW-244  alleged  that 
he  did  so  as  per  the  authorization  of  Chief 
Investigating  Officer  PW-248.  In  view  of  this, 
there  is  no  explanation  on  the  file  as  to  how  the 
accused  Navjot  Singh  was  linked  with  this  case. 

206  At   the   same   time,    it   is   admitted  case  of 

PW-248,  S.N.Saxena  that  on  the  day,  when  the 
accused  Navjot  Singh  was  arrested  he  was  at 
Chandigarh  and  if  it  is  so  why  he  himself  has  not 
arrested  the  accused  and  why  he  had  not  verified 
the  evidence  against  the  accused  to  ascertain  his 
arrest  are  some  of  the  facts  which  remain 
unexplained.  In  support  of  his  plea,  he  has  relied 
upon  Balak  Ram  and  another  versus  State  of  U.P 
reported  in  1974  Cri. L.J. 1486 

207.  At  the  same  time,   it  is  undisputed  case  of 


312 


PW-244  that  while  conducting  raid,  in  the  house  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh,  no  independent  witness  either 
from  the  locality  or  from  any  where  else  was 
associated  as  reguired  under  the  provision  of 
Section  100,  Sub-Section  4  of  the  Cr.P.C.  Even  the 
provision  of  Section  165  of  the  Cr.P.C  regarding 
recording  of  satisfaction  of  search  without  taking 
warrant  and  forwarding  the  same  to  the  Magistrate, 
within  24  hours,  have  not  been  complied  in  this 
case     as  admitted  by  PW-244  and  PW-248. 


208  No      doubt      PW-248,      Chief  Investigating 

Officer,       is  competent       to       authorize  his 

subordinates  for  doing  so  but  he  is  also  reguired 
to  record  his  reasons  but  in  this  case  no  such 
reasons  have  been  brought  on  the  record  with  a 
specific  order  giving  authority  to  PW-244.  Not 
even  this,  even  the  local  police  of  Mohali  was  not 
associated  during  the  raid  and  was  not  even 
informed  as  reguired  under  the  provision  of  166  Sub 
Section  2  of  the  Cr.P.C. 


209  Above      all       PW-244       during      the  cross 

examination  admitted  that  when  he  arrested  the 
accused  Navjot  Singh,  there  was  no  link  evidence 
against  him  except  the  information  provided  by 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara.  If  it  is  so,  there  was 
no  guestion  of  conducting  any  raid  as  the 
confession  of  the  co-accused  can  not  be  utilized  as 
evidence    for    any   purpose    whatever    as    held   by  the 


313 


Hon'ble  Bombay  High  Court  in  Rashid  Gafur  Versus 
State  of  Maharashtra,  1985  (1)  RCR,  Criminal,  Page 
186,  where  the  Hon'ble  Bombay  High  Court  has  held 
that  statement  of  co-accused  can  not  be  utilized 
for  the  purpose  of  conclusion  or  inference  to  hold 
that  a  prima  facie  case  is  made  out  against  some 
other  accused  and  the  provision  of  Section  30  of 
the  Indian  Evidence  Act  are  not  applicable  in  such 
a  case. 

210.  Accordingly   he    submitted   that    in   view  of 

the  above  settled  proposition  of  law,  it  is  clear 
that  there  was  not  even  a  iota  of  evidence  on  the 
file  with  the  prosecution  to  link  the  accused  with 
this  offence  or  with  the  conspiracy.  He  further 
submitted  that  the  other  material  circumstance 
alleged  against  the  accused  Navjot  Singh  to  link 
him  with  this  case  is  that  during  the  search  some 
writings,  Ex.PW91/23,  Ex.PW91/25,  Ex.PW91/27, 
Ex.PW91/29  and  Ex.PW91/46  were  recovered  from  the 
house  of  accused,  in  which  the  accused  has 
allegedly  mentioned  some  facts  which  shows  that  he 
was  the  part  and  parcel  of  the  conspiracy.  Apart 
from  this,  it  is  admitted  case  of  the  prosecution 
that  no  RDX  or  any  incriminating  article  was 
recovered  from  the  possession  of  the  accused  after 
the  search  of  his  house.  As  such,  the  guestion 
remains  whether  these  documents  are  sufficient  to 
link  the  accused  with  this  offence  as  a 
conspirator . 


314 


211  However,  first  of  all  the  prosecution  has 
failed  to  prove  that  the  incriminating  writings  are 
in  the  hands  of  accused  Navjot  Singh  as  the 
material  witnesses  of  the  prosecution  on  this 
aspect  PW-91,  PW-92  and  PW-94,  who  have  been 
examined  by  the  prosecution  to  identify  the  hand 
writing  of  the  accused,  have  failed  to  identify  the 
hand  writing  of  the  accused  on  those  disputed 
documents,  although,  they  identified  his  hand 
writing  on  the  admitted  documents  and  other 
documents . 

212  Even  otherwise,  even  if  it  is  presumed  for 
a  moment  that  these  literature  is  in  the  hands  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh,  how  it  smacks,  what  to  call 
of  showing  his  involvement  in  the  conspiracy,  is  a 
question  which  has  not  been  explained  on  the  file. 
Simply  because  of  the  fact  that  in  the  writing  it 
is  mentioned  that  blood  will  flow  in  the  '  Satluj 
Yamuna  Link  Canal'  instead  of  water  and  is  of 
Beant,  it  can  not  be  said  that  this  evidence  is 
sufficient  to  link  him  with  the  conspiracy  and  its 
consequences . 

213  Learned  defence  counsel  submitted  that  in 
Indira  Gandhi's  murder  case  reported  as  AIR  1988 
Supreme  Court,  page  1888,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
has  considered  this  aspect  and  held  that  conspiracy 
on  the  basis   of  incriminating  documents   can  not  be 


315 


inferred,  unless  it  is  shown  that  some  active  role 
in  any  manner  was  played  by  that  accused. 

214.  Similarly,     in    Balwant    Singh    and  another 

Versus  State  of  Punjab,  AIR  1995,  Supreme  Court, 
page  1785,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  laid  down  that 
raising  of  some  lonesome  slogans,  a  couple  of  times 
by  two  individuals,  without  anything  more,  did  not 
constitute  any  threat  to  the  Government  of  India  as 
by,  law  established  nor  could  the  same  give  rise  to 
feelings  of  enmity  or  hatred  among  different 
communities  or  religious  of  other  groups. 

215  Similarly,    the    Hon'ble    Kerala    High  Court 

in  Arvindu  Versus  State  of  Kerala,  1985  Criminal 
Law  Journal  page  1259,  reiterated  the  same 
principle.  Accordingly  in  the  present  case,  the 
recovery  of  literature  is  not  sufficient  to  link 
the  accused  Navjot  Singh  with  the  conspiracy. 

216.  He    further   submitted   that   as   per  PW- 

91,  who  was  a  co-employee  of  the  accused  Navjot 
Singh,  the  documents  Ex.PW91/l  to  Ex.PW91/22  are  in 
the  hand  writings  of  accused  Navjot  Singh  and  also 
bears  his  signatures.  However,  when  disputed 
documents  i.e  diary  containing  incriminating 
writings  exhibited  as  PW91/23  to  Ex.PW91/25,  along 
with  three  loose  sheets  containing  similar 
writings,  exhibited  as  PW91/26  to  PW91/30,  were  put 
to    this    witness,    he    stated    that    he    is    not  sure 


316 


whether  these  writings  are  in  the  hands  of  accused 
Navjot  Singh.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony 
of  PW-92,  Gurpreet  Singh,  another  co-employee  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh.  He  has  also  failed  to 
identify  the  disputed  hand  writings  to  be  in  the 
hands  of  accused.  As  such,  the  prosecution  has 
failed  to  link  the  accused  Navjot  Singh  with  the 
incriminating  writings  and  to  show  that  these 
writings  are  sufficient  to  link  him  with  the 
conspiracy . 

217.  The  prosecution  has  alleged  that  PW-109, 
Inderjit  Singh,  PW-184,  Amarjit  Kaur,  PW-117,  Gian 
Singh  and  PW-132,  Jagjit  Singh  alleged  that  accused 
Navjot  Singh  was  a  member  of  Anand  Kirtani  Jatha 
and  he  along  with  accused  Paramjit  Singh  and 
Jagroop  Singh  once  disclosed  that  they  are  going  to 
kill  Beant  Singh.  However,  all  these  four 
witnesses  have  not  supported  this  version  of  the 
prosecution  and  even  if  it  is  presumed  that  these 
witnesses  were  knowing  accused  Navjot  Singh, it 
itself  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  he  was  also 
involved  in  the  conspiracy  because  apart  from  the 
disclosure  statement  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
none  of  the  other  witnesses  of  the  prosecution  have 
ever  named  the  accused  Navjot  Singh  in  any  way. 

218.  Thus  as  such,  as  stated  by  DW-3,  R.S.Bajwa 
a  retired  Army  Man  and  neighborer  of  the  accused 
Navjot  Singh  and  his  father  DW-5,    Tirlok  Singh,  the 


317 


accused  Navjot  Singh  has  been  falsely  implicated  as 
he  was  taken  away  from  his  house  and  tortured  to 
become  a  witness  and  when  he  refused  to  oblige  the 
CBI,  he  was  named  as  a  conspirator  without  being 
there  any  evidence. 


219.  Not    even    this,    the    accused    Navjot  Singh 

was  also  arrested  by  Delhi  Police  in  a  case  of 
sedition.  But  as  per  the  judgment,  copy  of  which 
is  Ex.DW4/A,  he  was  acquitted  by  the  Delhi  Court 
with  the  observation  that  he  has  been  falsely 
implicated.  Even  DW-4,  Mokham  Singh,  who  was  a  co- 
accused  with  accused  Navjot  Singh  in  Delhi  case, 
deposed  that  when  the  accused  Navjot  Singh  was 
produced  at  Delhi  he  was  tortured  and  when  he 
asked  accused  Navjot  Singh,  he  disclosed  him  that 
he  is  being  forced  to  become  witness  and  thus  this 
fact  further  shows  that  this  accused  has  been 
falsely  implicated  in  this  case.  Above  all  in  none 
of  the  confession  made  by  all  the  remaining  accused 
persons  it  is  mentioned  that  this  accused  was  also 
associated  in  this  conspiracy.  As  such,  the 
commutative  effect  of  all  these  facts  and 
circumstances  is  that  prosecution  has  miserably 
failed  to  link  this  accused  with  this  conspiracy 
and  if  it  is  so,  he  is  entitled  for  benefit  of 
doubt  as  no  overt  act  is  attributed  to  him  except 
that  he  was  part  of  conspiracy.  Accordingly,  he 
prayed  that  this  accused  is  liable  to  be  acquitted. 


318 


220.  The  learned  defence  counsel  then  took  up 
the  case  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  and  submitted  that 
this  accused  has  also  been  falsely  implicated  in 
this  case  only  on  the  basis  of  disclosure  statement 
of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  recovery  of  the 
RDX  has  been  shown  from  him  just  to  link  him  with 
this  case  without  there  being  any  evidence  to  show 
that  he  was  ever  associated  in  the  conspiracy  to 
kill  Beant  Singh  at  any  stage. 

221.  To  substantiate  his  case,  he  submitted 
that  it  is  undisputed  case  of  the  prosecution  that 
in  all  the  disclosure  statement  of  accused  persons 
only  the  name  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  Dilawar 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
were  mentioned  but  the  name  of  accused  Nasib  Singh 
and  Navjot  Singh  was  never  mentioned.  On  the 
contrary,  he  has  been  linked  only  on  the  basis  of 
the  disclosure  statements  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara,  which  is  not  sufficient  evidence,  to  prove 
his  link  with  this  offence  or  the  conspiracy. 

222.  Not  even  this,  as  is  clear  from  the 
disclosure  statement  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
Ex.PW80/l,  he  only  disclosed  that  he  can  identify 
the  place  and  the  house  from  where  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  has  brought  RDX  without  naming  the 
accused  Nasib  Singh  as  owner  of  the  house  or 
without  disclosing  his  identity  in  any  manner.  If 
it   is   so,    the   disclosure   statement   of   the  accused 


319 


Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was  not  sufficient  to  arrest  the 
accused  or  to  link  him  with  this  conspiracy.  As 
such,  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  show  how 
the  name  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  surfaced  in  the 
case  and  how  he  was  arrested. 

223.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  alleged  by  the 
prosecution  that  after  the  arrest  of  the  accused 
Nasib  Singh,  he  suffered  a  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW81/l  admitting  that  some  RDX  has  been 
concealed  in  his  house  by  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  he  can  get  it  recovered  and  this 
disclosure  statement  was  recorded  in  the  presence 
of  Raghubir  Singh,  then  Sarpanch  of  Village 
Jhingran  Kalan  and  Naib  Singh  Ex-Sarpanch  and 
thereafter  recovery  of  RDX  was  made  in  the  presence 
of  both  these  witnesses. 

224.  However,  Naib  Singh  has  not  been  examined 
whereas  Raghubir  Singh,  who  has  appeared  as  PW  81, 
has  categorically  deposed  that  accused  Nasib  Singh 
never  made  any  disclosure  statement  in  his  presence 
to  the  CBI  nor  he  got  recovered  the  RDX  from  his 
fodder  room.  On  the  contrary,  he  alleged  that  when 
he  was  called  the  RDX  was  already  lying  there  and 
this  fact  clearly  proves  that  a  false  recovery  of 
RDX  from  the  possession  of  accused  has  been  shown 
to  link  him  with  this  case. 

225.  Not  even  this,    it   is   admitted  case  of  PW- 


320 


243,  A.P.Singh,  who  has  arrested  the  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  and  recorded  his  disclosure  statement, 
Ex.PW80/l  that  two  witnesses  P.K.Sinha  and  Kirpal 
Singh  of  BSNL  were  present  but  both  these  witnesses 
were  not  taken  to  Village  Jhingran  Kalan  to  arrest 
the  accused  Nasib  Singh  and  to  recover  the  RDX  and 
there  is  no  explanation  on  the  file.  Apart  from 
this  the  other  private  witnesses  has  not  supported 
this  theory  of  the  prosecution. 

226.  At  the  same  time,  PW-243,  A.P.Singh 
admitted  that  immediately  after  going  to  the  house 
of  accused  Nasib  Singh,  on  the  identification  of 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  he  arrested  accused 
Nasib  Singh  and  interrogated  him  and  accused  Nasib 
Singh  disclosed  that  one  bag  of  explosive  has  been 
kept  concealed  in  his  cattle  shed  on  the  asking  of 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  all  this  was  done  without 
arresting  the  accused  Nasib  Singh  and  if  it  is  so 
the  disclosure  statement  made  by  the  accused  Nasib 
Singh  without  his  arrest  is  not  admissible  in 
evidence.  At  the  same  time,  from  the  cross 
examination  of  PW-243,  it  further  comes  out  that  he 
never  visited  the  house  of  accused,  Nasib  Singh  as 
he  knows  nothing  about  the  situation  of  the  house, 
its  direction,  the  name  of  the  neighbourers  etc  and 
as  such  it  shows  that  accused  Nasib  Singh  has  been 
falsely  implicated. 

227.  Not  even  this,   one  more  fact  which  falsify 


321 


the  story  of  the  prosecution  qua  accused  Nasib 
Singh  is  that  PW-248  admitted  that  he  directed  PW- 
243,  A.P.Singh  to  arrest  the  accused  Nasib  Singh 
and  recover  the  RDX,  as  per  the  facts  disclosed  by 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  he  also  handed  over  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  to  him.  If  it  was  so,  there  was 
no  occasion  to  record  disclosure  statement  of 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  or  Nasib  Singh  as  it  was 
already  in  the  notice  of  the  Police  that  RDX  is 
lying  in  the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  whereas 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  his  disclosure  statement  has 
no  where  named  the  accused  Nasib  Singh  as  the  owner 
of  the  house,  from  where  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  has  brought  the  RDX.  This  fact  further  shows 
that  the  alleged  recovery  of  RDX  on  the  basis  of 
disclosure  statement  is  not  proved  as  per  the 
requirements  of  the  law  and  the  testimony  of  PW  243 
alone  is  not  sufficient  to  convict  the  accused 
Nasib  Singh  for  the  offence  of  conspiracy  specially 
when  none  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  including  PW 
243  or  PW-248,  Chief  Investigating  Officer  have 
stated  single  word  that  the  accused  Nasib  Singh  was 
part  and  parcel  of  the  conspiracy  or  that  he  kept 
RDX  in  his  house  knowing  that  it  is  being  used  for 
the  murder  of  Beant  Singh. 

228.  In   support   of   his    arguments,    he   has  also 

relied  upon  Bhagwan  Dass  Versus  State  of  Haryana, 
1970,  C.L.R  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court,  page  156; 
and   Jarnail   Singh  Versus   State   of   Punjab   in  2005 


322 


(3)  RCR  (Criminal)  page  314;  Deva  Versus  State  of 
Raj as than  AIR,  1999  Supreme  Court  214;  State  of  U.T 
Versus  Rakesh  Kumar  and  another  2002  (3)  RCC,  page 
472;  Vidyamati  Vs.  The  State  AIR  (38)  1951  Himachal 
Pradesh,  page  83;  and  Aher  Raja  Khima  Versus  State 
of  Saurashtra  AIR  1956  S.C.  217. 

229.  One  more  lacuna  pointed  out  by  learned 
defence  counsel  creating  doubt  regarding  recovery 
of  RDX  from  the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  is 
that  no  site  plan  of  the  place  of  recovery  has  been 
made  by  PW-243  and  there  is  no  explanation  on  the 
file  as  to  why  it  was  not  prepared.  On  the 
contrary,  it  shows  that  PW-243  never  visited  the 
house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  nor  made  any  recovery. 
Not  even  this,  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution 
that  Harpreet  Kaur,  daughter  of  accused  Nasib 
Singh,  was  present  at  the  time  of  recovery 
proceedings  and  she  was  also  cited  as  a  witness,  as 
her  statement  u/s  161  Cr.P.C  was  recorded  but  she 
was  not  examined  by  the  prosecution  at  least  to 
prove  the  factum  of  arrest  of  the  accused  and 
search  of  his  house. 

230.  Lastly,  he  submitted  that  the  most 
material  fact  which  falsifies  the  entire  case  of 
the  prosecution  qua  accused  Nasib  Singh  is  that  as 
per  PW  243  after  the  recovery  of  the  RDX  the  parcel 
of  the  RDX  was  sealed  with  the  seal  specimen  of 
which    is    printed    on    the    recovery   memo,  Ex.PW81/2 


323 


and  also  mentioned  by  PW-165  in  his  report 
Ex.PW165/2  but  PW-165  who  has  examined  the  parcel 
of  the  RDX  to  assess  its  nature  and  potency 
admitted  that  the  RDX  parcel  was  sealed  with  the 
seal  of  CBI-SIC-II  initials  and  this  fact  alone 
shows  that  the  parcel  which  was  examined  by  PW-165 
was  not  containing  the  alleged  RDX  which  was 
recovered  from  the  possession  of  the  accused  Nasib 
Singh  as  the  same  was  sealed  with  different  seals. 

231.  At   the   same   time,    it   is   admitted  case  of 

PW-248  that  PW-243  after  the  recovery  of  the  RDX 
handed  over  the  parcel  to  him  and  he  deposited  the 
parcel  of  RDX  in  the  malkhana  of  Police  Station, 
Chandigarh  but  no  record  has  been  brought  on  the 
file  by  the  prosecution  to  prove  this  fact  and  the 
link  evidence  regarding  custody  of  the  contraband 
articles  till  it  reaches  CFSL  is  also  missing  as  no 
witness  has  been  examined  to  prove  that  where  the 
RDX  remained  from  18.9.1995  to  21.9.1995,  when  it 
reaches  CFSL  and  in  whose  custody.  Even  no 
affidavit  of  any  of  the  Police  officials  with  whom 
it  remained  and  who  deposited  the  same  with  the 
CFSL  has  been  brought  on  the  record  to  prove  this 
link  above  all  although  the  sample  containing  the 
RDX  reaches  CFSL  on  21.9.1995  but  it  was  examined 
after  a  period  of  one  month  and  this  incredible 
delay  in  examining  the  samples  by  PW-165  further 
raises  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  the  version 
of  the  prosecution   in  this   regard.    This   fact  alone 


324 


shows  that  report  of  PW-165,  Roop  Singh  as  to  the 
contents  of  RDX  is  relating  to  some  other  parcel 
and  if  it  is  so  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file 
that  the  alleged  recovery  made  from  accused  Nasib 
Singh  was  actually  of  RDX  and  the  accused  is 
entitled  to  be  acquitted  on  this  ground  alone. 

232.  Taking  the  case  of  the  accused  Shamsher 
Singh,  learned  defence  counsel  submitted  that  it  is 
alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  during  the 
interrogation  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  the 
name  of  this  accused  came  to  the  light  and  his 
involvement  in  the  conspiracy  was  found  on  the  plea 
that  he  along  with  accused,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
brought  the  RDX  from  a  Village  near  Indo-Pak  Border 
near  Ajnala  in  the  Truck  of  PW-107,  Sapinder  Singh, 
bearing  registration  No.  PB-12-A-7947  and  kept  the 
two  bags  of  the  RDX  in  his  house  at  Village  Ukasi 
and  later  on  this  accused  admitted  the  factum  of 
conspiracy  and  his  involvement  in  this  crime  in  his 
confessional  statement,  Ex.PW103/G  before  PW-103, 
Dinesh  Kumar,  then  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Delhi. 
However,  during  the  trial,  the  prosecution  has 
failed  to  prove  its  story  by  even  any  evidence 
what  to  talk  of  plausible  evidence. 

233.  To  substantiate  his  case,  he  further 
submitted  that  the  prosecution  of  the  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  is  on  the  basis  of  the  confessional 
statement,   Ex.PW103/G,   which  was  recorded  after  the 


325 


filing  of  the  first  charge  sheet,  as  is  clear  from 
the  supplementary  charge  sheet  submitted  against 
him.  But  it  is  not  permissible  under  the  law 
because  in  the  earlier  charge  sheet  the  name  of 
this  accused  was  duly  mentioned  in  the  list  of 
accused  persons  showing  him  as  absconding  and  if  it 
was  so  the  filing  of  subsequent  charge  sheet  on  the 
basis  of  further  investigations  by  the  prosecution 
is  not  permissible  under  the  provision  of  Section 
173  Sub  Section  8  of  the  Cr.P.C  as  it  is  admitted 
case  of  the  prosecution  that  no  permission  or  the 
Magistrate  or  Sessions  Court  has  been  taken  before 
making  further  investigations  leading  to  filing  of 
the  supplementary  challan. 

234.  In  support  of  his  arguments,  he  relied 
upon  Sri  Bhagwan  Samardha  Sreepada  Vallabha  Venkata 
Vishwandadha  Mahara j ,  reported  in  1999(3)  RCR 
(Criminal),  page  587,  Vijay  Kumar  Versus  Kamarudhin 
reported  in  1999  (2) RCR  (Criminal) 262 ,  1999  Cri. 
L.J.  1294  and  Ravikrindi  Ramaswamy  and  another  Vs. 
State  of  A.P  reported  in  2003  (3)  Recent  Criminal 
Reports   (Criminal),  page  362. 

235.  He  further  submitted  that  even  otherwise, 
there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  show  the 
participation  of  this  accused  either  in  the 
conspiracy  or  in  the  actual  commission  of  the  crime 
in  any  manner.  It  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution 
that    name     of     this     accused    surfaced    during  the 


326 


interrogation  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara. 
However,  neither  in  the  disclosure  statement  of 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  nor  in  his  confession 
made  before  the  Magistrate,  the  name  of  this 
accused  has  been  disclosed  by  the  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara.  Even  in  the  disclosure  statement  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  his  name  has  not  been  figured 
as  one  of  the  conspirator.  On  the  other  hand,  both 
these  accused  have  named  remaining  accused  persons 
except  Shamsher  Singh,  Navjot  Singh  and  Nasib 
Singh . 

236.  Even  none  of  the  prosecution  witnesses 
could  name  him  or  give  any  evidence  to  link  him 
either  with  the  conspiracy  or  with  the  commission 
of  the  crime.  On  the  contrary,  the  entire  evidence 
of  the  prosecution  shows  that  this  accused  is 
falsely  implicated  in  this  case  when  he  refused  to 
become  a  witness  against  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  etc. 

237.  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he  submitted 
that  this  accused  was  arrested  by  PW-231,  Rajesh 
Kumar  allegedly  from  the  court  of  Special  Judicial 
Magistrate,  Patiala  but  during  his  cross 
examination  PW-231  admitted  that  he  has  not 
arrested  accused  Shamsher  Singh  from  the  court  of 
Special  Magistrate,  CBI,  Patiala  but  from  the  court 
of  SDM,  Patiala  and  as  such  the  entire  story  of  the 
prosecution     to     show    the     arrest     of     the  accused 


327 


Shamsher  Singh  from  CBI  Court,  Patiala,  is  proved 
to  be  a  false  stand.  On  the  contrary, it  shows  that 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  never  arrested  nor  he 
was  produced  before  the  CBI  Court.  But  his  remand 
was  obtained  without  producing  him  before  the  CBI 
Special  Magistrate. 

238.  At  the  same  time  all  the  safeguards 
provided  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  D.K.Basu's 
case  (Supra)  have  not  been  complied  at  the  time  of 
the  arrest  of  this  accused.  Above  all,  only 
incriminating  evidence  brought  on  the  file  by  the 
prosecution,  to  link  this  accused  with  the  case  in 
hand,  is  his  confessional  statement,  Ex.PW103/G, 
recorded  by  PW-103. 

239.  However,  the  prosecution  has  miserably 
failed  to  prove  that  this  confessional  statement 
of  the  accused  is  voluntarily  made  as  per  the 
safeguards  provided  under  the  law  and  it  has  been 
made  without  any  coercion,  pressure  or  threat.  In 
order  to  bring  home,  this  plea,  he  submitted  that 
there  are  hundreds  of  reasons  which  makes  this 
confession  inadmissible  in  evidence  and  some  of  the 
reasons  pointed  out  by  learned  defence  counsel  are 
as  below:- 

(a)  It  is  admitted  case  of  the 
prosecution  that  accused,  Shamsher  Singh 
was     arrested    on     11.12.1995     and    he  was 


328 


taken  to  Delhi  after  taking  his  police 
remand  but  despite  this  his  confessional 
statement  was  recorded  on  16.12.1995  and 
there  is  no  explanation  on  the  file  as 
to  what  was  done  between  these  five  days 
and  the  answer  to  this  question  is  that  as 
stated  by  this  accused,  he  was  tortured 
and  harassed  during  these  five  days  and 
was  pressurized  to  suffer  a  disclosure 
statement  and  as  such  this  makes  the 
confessional  statement  inadmissible  in 
evidence . 

(b)  It  is  admitted  case  of  PW-103, 
D . K . Sharma, Metropolitan  Magistrate  that 
the  accused  was  produced  before  him  at 
11.30  a.m  and  he  recorded  his  confession 
at  3.30  p.m  granting  him  only  a  time  of 
four  hours  to  reconcile  and  think  over 
which  is  insufficient  keeping  in  view  the 
longer  custody  of  the  accused  with  the 
Police.  As  per  learned  defence  counsel, 
the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Sarwan  Singh 
Rattan  Singh  Vs.  State  of  Punjab  reported 
in  AIR  1957,  SC  637  laid  down  certain 
provision  and  safeguards  required  to  be 
taken  care  of  while  recording  the 
confessional  statement  and  one  of  these 
safeguard  is  that  at  least  a  period  of 
24  hours  should     be  given  to  an  accused  to 


329 


think  over  before  recording  his 
confessional  statement  besides  other 
necessary  ingredients.  However, in 

this  case,  this  condition  has  not  been 
satisfied  which  makes  the  confession 
highly  doubtful. 

c) Similarly  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  further 
held  that  the  confession  should  be 
recorded  as  per  High  Court  rules  and 
orders  which  reguires  that  accused  must  be 
guestioned  extensively  to  assess  that 
he  is  making  the  confession  voluntarily 
and  without  any  pressure,  or  threat  and 
for  this  certain  specific  guestion  have 
been  provided  but  in  this  case  it  is 
admitted  case  of  PW-103,  D.K.Sharma, 
Metropolitan  Magistrate,  that  he  has  not 
recorded  specific  guestion  as  per  the  High 
Court  rules  &  orders,  which  further  shows 
that  the  confession  has  been  recorded  not 
as  per  procedure  of  law.  In  support  of 
this  plea,  he  relied  upon  Ayyub  etc  Vs. 
State  of  U.P  reported  in  2002  (2)  RCR 
(Criminal) ,  page 

(d)  Even  PW-103  has  not  introduced  himself 
before  starting  recording  his  confession, 
as  such,  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to 
show     that  accused  was   knowing  that  he  is 


330 


being  produced  before  a  Judicial 
Magistrate  for  recording  his  statement  and 
from  all  the  proceedings  of  the 
confession  done  by  PW  103,  there  is  no 
mention  any  where  that  he  is  conducting 
these  proceedings  as  Metropolitan 
Magistrate  and  no  such  fact  is  mentioned 
by  PW-103,  while  starting  recording  the 
confession  of  this  accused  which  further 
shows  that  it  has  not  been  recorded  as  per 
the  procedure  of  law  and  thus  not 
voluntarily  made  confession  as  stated  by 
this  accused,  who  has  retracted  from  the 
same  immediately  when  he  came  to  know 
about  the  same.  In  support  of  this  plea, 
he  relied  upon  Sanatan  Badchat  Versus  The 
State,  reported  as  AIR  1953  Orissa  page 
149 

240.  He    further    submitted   that    it    is  admitted 

case  of  the  prosecution  that  confessional  statement 
of  an  accused  can  be  recorded  only  during  the 
course  of  investigations  or  thereafter  but  before 
an  inquiry  or  trial.  But  in  the  present,  the 
accused  was  already  charge  sheeted  and  committed  to 
the  trial  in  the  first  charge  sheet.  As  such, 
recording  of  his  confession  during  further 
investigations  is  not  permissible  under  the  law  as 
the  provision  of  Section  164  of  the  Cr.P.C  are 
applicable    only   to    the    confession    recorded  during 


331 


the  investigations  but  before  the  start  of  inquiry 
or  trial  but  in  this  case,  this  confession  has  been 
recorded  in  violation  of  this  provision  and  as  such 
this  confession  is  not  admissible  in  evidence. 

241.  In  support  of  his  plea,  he  relied  upon 
Rishi  and  another  Vs.  State  of  Bihar,  reported  in 
AIR,  1955  Patna  425,  State  Vs.  Ram  Avtar  Chaudhry 
and  others,  reported  in  AIR  1955  Allahabad  138, 
Bachchan  Lai  Vs.  The  State,  reported  in  AIR  1957 
Allahabad  184  and  Ram  Singh  Versus  State  reported 
in  AIR  1959  Allahabad  518. 

242.  Not  even  this  there  is  no  explanation  on 
the  file  as  to  why  the  production  warrant  of 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  not  obtained  for 
securing  his  arrest  in  this  case  and  why  the 
permission  of  Area  Magistrate  was  not  obtained  and 
even  if  accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  arrested  from 
Patiala,  why  he  was  not  immediately  produced  before 
CJM,  Chandigarh  for  his  further  remand  despite  the 
fact  that  the  Chandigarh  is  situated  nearer  to 
Delhi.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  alleged  by  PW-243, 
that  the  police  remand  of  the  accused  Shamsher 
Singh  was  taken  from  Patiala  as  it  was  easily 
available  there  and  accused  Shamsher  Singh  was 
taken  to  Delhi  without  producing  him  before  the 
Area  Magistrate  i.e  CJM  Chandigarh  and  if  it  is  so, 
the  recording  of  confession  of  accused  without 
proper  permission  of  the  area  Magistrate   is  bad  in 


332 


law  and  makes  the  confession  is  highly  doubtful. 
In  support  of  his  plea,  he  has  relied  upon  State  of 
Rajasthan  Vs.  Santosh  Yadav,  reported  in  2005  (2) 
RCR  (Criminal)  Recent  Criminal  Reports,  page  303. 

243.  Even  after  the  filing  of  the  first  charge 
sheet  showing  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh  as 
absconder,  the  other  accused  has  moved  an 
application  before  Sessions  Court  that  accused 
Shamsher  Singh,  is  already  in  the  illegal  custody 
of  CBI  since  September,  1995  and  when  the  CBI  came 
to  know  about  this  application,  he  was  arrested  and 
was  taken  to  Delhi  without  their  being  any  evidence 
of  conspiracy  against  him.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
admitted  case  of  the  prosecution  that  on 
10.12.1995,  accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  arrested  in 
FIR  No. 127  for  harboring  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  but  despite  this  he  was  also  arrested  in 
this  case  being  a  conspirator  without  there  being 
any  evidence . 

244.  Even  in  the  application  moved  by  PW-243 
for  recording  the  confessional  statement  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh,  Ex.PWl03/A,  it  is  alleged  that  the 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  had  suffered  some  disclosure 
statement  but  no  such  disclosure  statement  has  been 
made  part  of  the  record  is  a  fact  which  is  also  not 
explained  but  which  shows  that  there  was  no 
evidence  against  him. 


333 


245.  He  further  submitted  that  even  from  the 
contents  of  confessional  statement,  it  comes  out 
that  the  accused  was  forced  to  make  the  same  as  he 
was  under  bonafide  apprehension  that  he  will  be 
falsely  implicated  more  seriously  by  the  other 
witnesses,  which  further  shows  that  this  confession 
is  not  a  voluntarily  made  confession  but  it  was 
with  an  intention  to  gain  something  and  to  avoid  a 
lesser  evil  and  thus  it  can  not  be  relied  upon 
for  any  purpose  whatsoever  and  thus  should  be 
discarded . 

246.  Learned  defence  counsel  further  submitted 
that  it  is  admitted  case  of  the  prosecution  that 
name  of  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh  surfaced  in  the 
disclosure  statement  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  on 
13.09.1995,  but  no  efforts  were  made  to  arrest 
this  accused  till  11.12.1995.  Whereas  it  is  proved 
on  the  file  that  this  accused  was  arrested  by  the 
Punjab  Police  on  29.9.1995  itself  and  he  was  kept 
in  illegal  custody  and  after  torture  and  harassment 
he  was  forced  to  make  confession  as  apart  from  the 
confession,  there  is  no  direct  or  circumstantial 
evidence  on  the  file  to  link  him  with  this  case. 

247.  To  substantiate  this  plea,  he  submitted 
that  PW-107,  Sapinder  Singh,  was  the  star  witness 
of  the  prosecution  to  link  this  accused  with  this 
conspiracy  as  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that 
accused   Shamsher   Singh,    took   the   Truck   of   PW  107, 


334 


Sapinder  Singh  to  go  to  a  Village  near  the  Indo- 
Pak  Border  near  Ajnala  along  with  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  some  other  persons. 
However,  during  the  trial  PW-107  failed  to  prove 
this  theory  on  the  file.  On  the  contrary,  he  has 
categorically  deposed  that  he  was  knowing  accused 
Shamsher  Singh,  who  is  related  to  him  and  the  CBI 
has  pressurized  him  to  depose  against  the  accused 
about  bringing  of  RDX  in  his  Truck  but  actually  he 
never  accompanied  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh  or 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  with  his  Truck  to  bring  any 
RDX.  Although,  this  witness  was  declared  hostile  by 
the  prosecution  and  was  cross  examined  at  length 
but  the  prosecution  has  failed  to  bring  out 
anything  to  shatter  his  testimony  which  shows  the 
main  plank  of  the  prosecution  is  false. 

248.  On    the    other   hand,    it    is   proved   on  the 

file  that  this  witness  was  arrested  by  the  Police 
in  a  case  registered  for  commission  of  offences  u/s 
212  and  216  of  the  IPC  registered  vide  FIR  No.  127 
of  1995  in  Police  Station,  Sadar  Rajpura  by  the 
Punjab  Police  on  7.11.1995  but  despite  this  his 
statement  was  recorded  in  this  case  only  on 
15.11.1995.  Not  even  this,  it  is  also  proved  on  the 
file  that  this  witness  has  moved  a  petition  u/s  482 
of  the  Cr.P.C  before  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  against 
the  harassment  by  the  CBI  and  when  the  CBI  came  to 
know  about  this,  his  statement  was  got  recorded  at 
Delhi    by   pressurising   him.    At    the    same    time,  the 


335 


two  other  persons,  who  allegedly  accompanied  PW-107 
along  with  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Shamsher  Singh, 
named  as  Deva  and  Dal jit,  have  not  been  examined  or 
even  cited  as  a  witness  to  prove  the  presence  of 
this  witness  and  his  taking  of  truck  on  the  asking 
of  Shamsher  Singh,  which  further  shows  that  this 
witness  was  harassed  and  forced  to  depose  before 
the  Magistrate. 

249.  Even    the    Truck    allegedly    used    by  this 

witness  for  bringing  RDX  on  the  asking  of  Shamsher 
Singh  has  not  been  taken  into  possession.  Even 
there  is  no  explanation  on  the  file  that  how  PW- 
243,  came  to  know  the  name  of  PW-107,  being 
concerned  with  this  case  and  when  PW-243  was 
confronted  on  this  aspect,  he  alleged  that  it  was 
PW-248,  S.N.Saxena,  the  Chief  Investigating  Officer 
of  the  case,  who  directed  him  to  join  PW-107  in  the 
investigations  but  Mr.Saxena  has  denied  this  fact. 
At  the  same  time,  no  legal  aid  was  granted  to  PW- 
107  by  PW-108  while  recording  his  statement  u/s  164 
Cr.P.C.  If  it  is  so  all  these  facts  &  circumstances 
shows  that,  as  stated  by  PW-107,  he  was  harassed 
and  maltreated  and  forced  to  depose  against  accused 
Shamsher  Singh.  As  such,  even  the  testimony  of  PW- 
108  proved  in  vain  to  link  this  accused  with  the 
offence  because  as  stated  earlier  PW-107  was  kept 
in  illegal  custody  for  about  one  month  and  he  was 
pressurized  to  suffer  a  statement  against  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  before  PW-108  as  held  by  the  Hon'ble 


336 


Apex  Court  in  Bolum  Bhaskara  Rao  and  another  Versus 
State  of  A.P,  reported  in  1985  Crl.L.J.32 

250.  He  further  submitted  that  as  stated 
earlier  none  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  stated 
anything  against  this  accused  to  link  him  with  the 
conspiracy  and  the  alleged  act  of  omissions  and 
commissions  on  his  part  in  bringing  the  RDX  have 
not  been  established  on  record  in  view  of  the  stand 
taken  by  PW-107.  Besides  this,  the  confession  of 
this  accused  is  not  admissible  in  evidence  and  if 
it  is  so  there  is  not  even  an  iota  of  evidence  to 
prove  that  this  accused  at  any  point  of  time  had 
shared  any  conspiracy  with  any  of  the  accused 
persons  as  per  the  ingredients  of  law  and  in 
support  of  his  plea,  he  has  relied  upon 
Dr . Dattatraya  Narayan  Samant  and  others  Vs.  State 
of  Maharashtra  reported  in  1982  Cri.L.J.  1025. 

251.  He  further  submitted  that  even  in  the 
authority  relied  upon  by  the  prosecution  in  this 
regard  Shankaria  Vs. State  of  Rajasthan  AIR  1978, 
Supreme  Court,  page  1248,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
held  that  where  after  comparing  the  confession  in 
the  light  of  surrounding  circumstances  and 
probabilities  coupled  with  the  fact  that  it  was 
perfectly  voluntary,  the  Court  is  satisfied  then  it 
can  be  relied  upon  but  in  this  case  both  these 
material  facts  have  not  been  proved.  With  these 
averments,    he    submitted    that    the    prosecution  has 


337 


failed  to  link  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh  either 
with  the  conspiracy  or  with  the  actual  commission 
of  the  crime  in  any  manner  and  as  such  he  is 
entitled  for  benefit  of  doubt  and  liable  to  be 
acquitted . 


252.  Taking  the  case  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
learned  counsel  for  accused  submitted  that  as  far 
as  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  is  concerned,  what  to 
talk  of  any  incriminating  evidence  against  this 
accused,  there  is  not  even  iota  of  evidence,  even 
to  link  this  accused  with  this  case. 


253.  To    substantiate    this    plea,    he  submitted 

that  it  is  undisputed  case  of  the  prosecution  that 
occurrence  of  this  case,  which  took  place  on 
31.8.1995,  was  a  result  of  conspiracy  which  was 
hatched  between  20.8.1995  to  31.8.1995.  However, 
there  is  not  even  an  iota  of  evidence  on  the  file 
which  could  in  any  where  remotely  suggests  that 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  associated  during  this 
period  in  the  conspiracy  in  any  manner. 


254.  As    far    as    testimony    of    PWs    Avtar  Singh, 

Puran  Chand  and  SP  Singh  in  this  regard  is 
concerned,  it  is  totally  irrelevant  as  none  of 
these  witnesses  has  stated  anything  against  the 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  they  have  not  even 
identified  him.  Although  the  prosecution  tried  to 
link   the   accused   Gurmeet   Singh  by  way   of  identity 


338 


of  this  accused  through  photographs  but  that 
identity  is  not  sufficient  to  link  this  accused 
specially  when  it  is  undisputed  case  of  the 
prosecution  that  no  test  identification  parade  was 
conducted  to  establish  the  identity  of  this  accused 
from  any  of  the  witnesses  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  to  link  him  with  this  case. 

255.  To  substantiate  his  case  he  submitted  that 
it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  the  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  is  working  in  BPL  Engineering 
Limited,  Chandigarh,  which  is  an  admitted  fact  and 
he  was  absent  from  his  duties  on  31.8.1995  i.e  the 
date  of  occurrence,  1.9.1995,4.9.1995  and  5.9.1995 
and  during  these  days,  he  participated  in 
commission  of  this  crime.  However,  the  prosecution 
has  failed  to  prove  this  story.  PW-67,  T . P . Yadav 
and  PW-64,  A.K.Parashar  were  the  two  witnesses  from 
the  office,  where  the  Gurmeet  Singh,  was  working 
but  these  witnesses  have  failed  to  prove  that  the 
accused  was  absent  on  31.8.1995  and  after  that. 

256.  On  the  contrary,  they  admitted  that 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  arrested  from  the  Office. 
As  per  PW-67,  Gurmeet  Singh  was  on  leave  on 
31.8.1995  and  4.9.1995,  as  per  the  leave  card, 
Ex.PW64/D  but  that  leave  card  is  not  signed  by  the 
accused,  as  reguired  under  the  rules  and  as 
admitted  by  this  witness.  On  the  contrary,  it 
proves       that       the       date       31.8.1995       has  been 


339 


interpolated  by  changing  the  digit  2  to  3.  As 
regards  4.9.1995  PW-64,  A.K.Parashar  has  admitted 
in  his  statement  u/s  161  Cr.P.C  that  accused  Gurmit 
Singh  was  on  duty  on  4.9.1995  and  as  such  his  stand 
in  the  court  that  he  was  absent  on  4.9.1995  is  an 
improvement  made  on  the  asking  of  the  CBI. 

257.  On  the  contrary,  both  these  witnesses  have 
admitted  that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  attended  the 
office  on  5.9.1995  till  after  noon,  when  he  was 
taken  away  by  some  persons  and  then  PW-64  admitted 
that  he  was  taken  away  by  the  Police.  Even  DSP 
Surinder  Pal  Singh,  who  had  collected  the  leave 
records  also  admitted  that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
was  arrested  from  his  office.  Thus,  this  evidence 
itself  proves  that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was 
present  on  his  duties  on  31.8.1995,  2.9.1995, 
4.9.1995  and  5.9.1995  which  means  even  after  the 
bomb  blast  in  guestion,  which  took  place  on 
31.8.1995  and  this  fact  alone  shows  that  he  was  not 
concerned  with  this  occurrence  otherwise  he  would 
have  escaped. 

258.  Not  even  this,  it  is  admitted  case  of  PW- 
67  that  every  employee  working  in  the  company  has 
to  prepare  a  Engineer's  daily  report  and  the 
reports  of  Gurmeet  Singh  were  also  taken  into 
possession  by  the  Police.  But  these  reports  have 
not  been  made  part  of  the  record  with  a  obvious 
purpose  that  had  it  been  produced  the  entire  story 


340 


of  the  prosecution  will  become  false  as  to  the 
absence  of  this  accused  on  31.8.1995  and  4.9.1995 
and  these  reports  further  shows  that  this  accused 
was  attending  his  office  from  20.8.1995  to 
31.8.1995,  which  is  the  crucial  period  during 
which  the  conspiracy  was  hatched. 

259.  He  further  submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by 
the  prosecution  that  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh,  was 
knowing  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  he  was  having 
some  association  with  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  and  the  prosecution 
further  alleged  that  on  the  morning  of  31.8.1995, 
when  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh,  were 
about  to  leave  the  house  of  PW-99,  Gurmeet  Singh 
had  also  come  there  to  meet  them  but  this  theory  of 
prosecution  remained  unsubstantiated  because  in  his 
cross  examination,  this  witness  admitted  that  the 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  had  not  come  to  his  house  and 
in  his  statement  u/s  161  Cr.P.C  also,  he  has  not 
mentioned  this  fact  also  and  as  such  the  testimony 
of  this  witness  to  associate  with  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  with  the  remaining  accused  proved  in  vain  to 
bring  home  the  conspiracy  by  the  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh . 

260.  He  further  submitted  that  as  per  the 
prosecution  the  belt  bomb  was  prepared  in  the 
house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  in  view  of  the 
testimony    of     PW-55,     Reema    Kahlon,     PW-68,  Puran 


341 


Chand  and  PW-63,  Avtar  Singh  and  PW-101  Satwinder 
Pal  Singh  @  Simpy,  it  is  proved  that  all  the 
accused  persons  including  Dilawar  Singh,  Balwant 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Lakhwinder  Singh 
prepared  the  bomb  and  when  the  room  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  was  raided  on  8.9.1995,  some 
incriminating  articles  having  the  traces  of  RDX 
were  recovered  in  the  presence  of  PW-160,  RS.Verma 
and  PW-70,  Parnab  Sain.  But  the  prosecution  has 
failed  to  substantive  its  story  in  this  regard. 


261.  As    far   as    the   testimony   of   PW-55,  Reema 

Kahlon  is  concerned, she  was  allegedly  working  in 
the  PCO  of  PW-63,  Avtar  Singh,  in  the  ground  floor 
of  the  room,  where  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was 
residing  and  she  alleged  that  2-3  days  prior  to 
31.8.1995,  she  had  seen  3-4  persons  coming  to  the 
house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  she  allegedly 
identified  the  photographs  of  some  of  those  persons 
including  that  of  Dilawar  Singh  but  she  failed  to 
identify  any  of  the  accused  in  the  court.  On  the 
contrary,  in  her  cross  examination, she  admitted 
that  while  sitting  in  the  booth  she  could  not  see 
the  stairs  or  the  room  of  the  Gurmeet  Singh  and  she 
further  admitted  that  as  far  as  the  name  of  the 
persons  used  to  visit  Gurmeet  Singh  is  concerned, it 
was  disclosed  to  her  by  the  CBI  and  if  it  is  so, 
the  testimony  of  this  witness  is  of  no  relevance  as 
far  as  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  is  concerned. 


342 


262.  Similarly  PW-63,  Avtar  Singh,  who  is  the 
owner  of  the  room,  where  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
was  residing  along  with  PW-101,  Satwinder  Pal  Singh 
@  Simpy,  failed  to  say  anything  incriminating 
against  this  accused  as  his  only  stand  was  that 
initially  PW-101,  Satwinder  Pal  Singh  @  Simpy  was 
inducted  as  a  tenant  in  his  room  and  later  on  he 
brought  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  as  a  co-tenant  and 
both  of  them  started  residing  there.  Apart  from 
this,  he  stated  nothing  against  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh.  On  the  contrary,  he  admitted  that  after  the 
occurrence  of  blast  on  31.8.1995  PW-101,  S.P.Singh 
@  Simpy  was  absconding  from  the  room  and  he  had 
also  taken  away  his  belongings  and  if  it  was  so, 
the  conduct  of  PW-101  was  suspicious  but  as  far  as 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  is  concerned,  he  continued  to 
reside  in  this  room  till  his  arrest. 

263.  Similarly,  the  testimony  of  PW-68,  Puran 
Chand  is  also  not  relevant  as  he  has  also  simply 
alleged  that  he  has  seen  some  persons  while 
visiting  the  room  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  he 
identified  the  photographs  of  those  persons  during 
the  investigation  and  also  in  the  court  and  then  he 
identified  the  accused  in  the  court  on  the  basis  of 
the  photographs  but  that  identification  is 
irrelevant  and  meaningless  because  no  test 
identification  parade  was  conducted  by  the  Police 
to  establish  the  identity  of  any  of  the  accused 
persons  from  this  witness  and  as  such  identified  by 


343 


way  of  photo  graph  is  irrelevant. 

264.  He  further  submitted  that  as  far  as  the 
testimony  of  PW-101,  Satwinder  Pal  Singh  @  Simpy, 
is  concerned,  it  is  also  not  admissible  in  evidence 
because  this  witness  has  disclosed  the  name  of  the 
accused  persons  under  the  pressure  of  the  Police. 
To  substantiate  this  plea, he  submitted  that  when 
PW-101  was  examined  for  the  first  time  on 
4.12.1999,  he  had  not  identified  any  of  the  accused 
persons  except  accused  Gurmeet  Singh.  On  the 
contrary,  his  act  and  conduct  was  so  suspicious 
that  the  only  inference  which  can  be  drawn  was  that 
he  is  pressurized  by  the  Police  to  depose  and 
because  of  that  pressure  he  collapsed  in  the  court 
during  his  testimony  and  earlier  also  he  was 
weeping  and     confused  and  upset. 

265.  Not  even  this,  he  has  alleged  that  he 
along  with  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  took  this  room 
jointly  whereas  the  owner  of  the  house,  Avtar 
Singh,  had  categorically  deposed  that  it  was  this 
witness,  who  took  the  room  on  rent  alone  and  later 
on  he  joined  Gurmeet  Singh  as  a  co-tenant.  Not  even 
this  he  admitted  that  on  28.8.1995,  when  the 
friends  of  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  visited  his 
room,  he  was  not  knowing  any  of  them  except  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  and  it  was  Gurmeet  Singh,  who 
introduced  his  friends  as  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Balwant 
Singh  and  Bhai  Ji  and  later  on  he  came  to  know  that 


344 


the  real  name  of  Bhai  Ji  was  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

266.  Not  even  this  he  further  admitted  that  in 
the  month  of  January,  1996  the  accused  Balwant 
Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  were  shown  to  him  by 
the  CBI.  Above  all  he  admitted  that  on  31.8.1995 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was  very  much  present  in  the 
room  whereas  after  31-8-1995,  PW-101  stopped 
residing  in  the  room  and  never  visited  the  same 
even  to  take  his  belongings  and  this  fact  shows 
that  it  was  this  witness,  who  was  absconding  after 
31-8-1995  and  just  to  save  himself  from  the  hands 
of  the  CBI,  he  became  a  witness  and  during  his 
cross  examination,  when  he  was  again  asked  to 
identify  the  accused  persons  by  name,  he  failed  to 
identify  the  accused  persons  except  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  and  Balwant  Singh.  Thus  the  testimony  of  this 
witness  is  not  reliable  as  far  as  the  disputed 
question  of  participation  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
in  conspiracy  as  well  as  its  execution  is 
concerned . 

267.  He  further  submitted  that  as  far  as  the 
identification  of  the  accused  persons  by 
photographs  and  then  in  the  court  is  concerned,  it 
is  also  of  no  consequences  and  can  not  be  made 
basis  to  establish  their  identity  because  in 
D.Gopala  Krishanan  Versus  Sadanand  Nayak,  AIR  2004, 
SC,  page  4965,  the  learned  Apex  Court  held  that  if 
during  the  course  of  investigation,   the  witness  had 


345 


given  the  identifying  features  of  the  assailants, 
the  same  could  be  confirmed  by  the  Investigating 
Officer,  by  showing  the  photographs  of  the  suspects 
but  not  a  single  photo  graph.  However,  if  the 
suspect  is  available  for  identification  or  for 
video  identification,  the  photographs  shall  never 
be  shown  to  the  witness  in  advance  and  if  during 
the  investigations,  the  Police  has  shown  the 
photographs  of  the  accused  to  the  witnesses  despite 
the  fact  that  the  witnesses  were  neither  knowing 
them  nor  gave  any  identifying  features  and  then 
those  witnesses  identifies  the  accused  in  the 
court,    such  a  identification  is  not  admissible. 

268.  Similarly,     in    the    present    case,    none  of 

the  witnesses  were  associated  with  Gurmeet  Singh  or 
either  knowing  him  or  provided  his  identifying 
features,  as  such  showing  them  the  photo  graph  of 
this  accused  and  then  identification  of  this 
accused  by  those  witnesses  including  PW-68  Puran 
Chand,  Avtar  Singh  is  of  no  conseguences  and  the 
prosecution  was  required  to  conduct  a  test 
identification  parade  to  establish  the  identity. 
Similarly  in  Laxmipat  Choraria  Versus  State  of 
Maharashtra  AIR  1968,  SC,  page  938,  the  Hon'ble 
apex  Court  held  that  identification  of  a  suspect  by 
the  witnesses  on  the  basis  of  photographs  in  the 
court  or  in  the  identification  parade  is  worthless 
and  can  not  be  made  basis  for  the  conviction  of  the 
accused . 


346 


269.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  admitted  case  of 
prosecution  that  no  test  identification  parade  was 
conducted  to  establish  the  identity  of  any  of  the 
accused  persons  associated  with  the  conspiracy.  On 
the  contrary  either  the  accused  have  been  shown  to 
them  during  the  investigations  or  their  photographs 
have  been  shown  and  then  they  have  been  asked  to 
identify  the  accused  persons  despite  the  fact  that 
they  have  neither  disclosed  the  vital  statistics 
regarding  the  identity  of  the  accused  persons  nor 
their  name  or  any  other  description  and  if  it  is  so 
the  testimony  of  all  these  witnesses  is  irrelevant. 

270.  In  support  of  this  plea,  he  has  relied 
upon  Jaimal  Singh  Versus  The  State  of  Haryana, 
reported  in  AIR  1988  (2)  Recent  Criminal  Reports, 
page  58,  Man  Singh  and  ors  Versus  The  State  of 
Haryana,  reported  in  1984(2)  Recent  Criminal 
Reports, P&H  page  379,  Ramanathan  Versus  The  State 
of  Tamil  Nadu  reported  in  AIR  1978  Supreme  Court, 
page  1204,  Rakesh  Harilal  Kahar  Versus  State  of 
Maharashtra  reported  in  AIR  2007(2)  RCR  Criminal, 
page  325,  Khan  Singh  @  Ujagar  Khan  and  Chhotey 
Versus  State,  reported  in  1997  CRI . L . J. 2305 , 
Mahendra  Singh  Versus  State  of  U.P.,  reported  in 
1991  CRI. L.J.  1381,  State  (Delhi  Admn)  Versus 
V.C.Shukla,  reported  in  AIR  1980  Supreme  Court, 
page  1382 ,  Shaikh  Umar  Ahmed  Shaikh  and  another 
versus    State   of   Maharashtra   reported   in   AIR  1998 


347 


Supreme  Court,  page  1922. 


271.  Similarly,  he  further  submitted  that  the 
prosecution  has  also  failed  to  prove  the  recovery 
of  any  incriminating  articles  from  the  house  of 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  its  link  with  the 
conspiracy  and  execution  of  the  same.  As  per 
learned  defence  counsel,  it  is  alleged  by 
prosecution  that  PW-237,  A.K.Ohri,  after  the  arrest 
of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  raided  his  house  at 
Patiala  and  as  per  recovery  memo,  Ex.PW-237/1, 
some  articles  were  recovered  but  none  of  those 
articles  were  incriminating. 

272.  At  the  same  time,  at  the  time  of  the 
arrest  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  as  per  arrest  memo 
Ex.PW51/4,  the  address  of  house  of  the  accused,  as 
resident  of  H. No. 981  Phase  IV  Mohali,  was  known  to 
the  Investigating  Officer  and  if  it  was  so,  he  was 
required  to  raid  that  house  immediately  but  instead 
of  doing  so,  he  raided  the  house  at  Patiala,  which 
has  no  link  with  the  offence. 

273.  On  the  contrary,  the  house  of  Gurmeet 
Singh  at  Mohali  was  allegedly  raided  on  8.9.1995, 
which  fact  can  not  be  believed  on  the  face  of  it. 
As  such,  all  the  proceedings  showing  the  making  of 
disclosure  statement , Ex . PW68/A  by  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  on  8.9.1995,  in  the  presence  of  PW-70,  Parnab 
Sain     and     PW-68,      Puran     Chand     and     recovery  of 


348 


incriminating  articles 
statements      is  totally 
doubtful . 


on     the     basis     of  these 
irrelevant      and  highly 


274.  To    substantiate    this    plea,    he  submitted 

that  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  after  making 
of  disclosure  statement  by  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
when  the  house  of  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was 
raided  at  Mohali,  PW-160  R.S.Verma  were  also 
associated.  However,  the  presence  of  this  witness 
during  search  and  seizure  proceedings  is  highly 
doubtful,  as  he  admitted  that  the  recovery  memo, 
Ex.PW68/B,  vide  which  some  articles  were  recovered 
from  the  house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  is  not 
signed  by  him,  and  there  is  no  explanation  in  this 
regard.  It  is  further  alleged  that  PW-160  examined 
the  incriminating  articles  then  and  there  in  the 
room  of  Gurmeet  Singh  but  no  report  was  prepared  by 
him  in  this  regard  at  the  spot  which  further  belies 
his  presence  during  the  recovery  proceedings. 


275.  At   the   same   time,    it   can   not   be  believed 

that  the  particles  of  RDX  and  all  the  articles  used 
to  prepare  the  belt  bomb  will  be  scattered  by  the 
accused  persons  in  his  house  as  alleged.  On  the 
contrary,  this  story  is  highly  unbelievable 
specially  when  it  is  proved  on  the  file  that  after 
the  occurrence  of  31.8.1995,  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
is  admittedly  residing  in  his  room  up  to  5.9.1995 
and     he     being     an     Engineer     will     not     left  any 


349 


incriminating  particles  or  articles  containing  the 
traces  of  RDX  in  his  room  and  he  will  not  allow  the 
presence  of  any  such  material  there.  Had  he  been 
involved  in  conspiracy  the  first  thing  he  would 
have  done  would  be  the  cleaning  of  his  room  and 
this  fact  alone  shows  that  this  entry  story  is 
bogus  and  fabricated. 


276.  Above      all,      the      entire      story     of  the 

prosecution  that  the  belt  bomb  was  prepared  in  the 
house  of  Gurmeet  Singh  stands  falsify  from  the 
confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  who  in  his 
confession,  categorically  stated  that  the  belt  bomb 
was  prepared  by  him  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  no 
26.8.1995  itself  and  on  27.8.1995  some  splinters 
etc  were  added  in  the  same  to  complete  the  bomb.  If 
it  is  so,  there  was  no  occasion  whatsoever  to  take 
the  services  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  for  the 
preparation  of  bomb  at  his  premises  as  alleged 
specially  when  he  is  not  a  ballistic  expert  but  he 
is  simply  an  electrical  engineer. 


277.  Not   even   this,    even   in   the   confession  of 

accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  there  is  no  mention  of 
any  preparation  of  Belt  bomb  in  the  house  of 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  which  further  falsify  the 
stand  of  prosecution  and  shows  that  there  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  to  link  this  accused  with  the 
conspiracy  or  its  execution. 


350 


278.  Lastly  he  submitted  that  the  other 
material  rather  the  most  material  witness  of  the 
prosecution  leading  to  unearth  the  entire 
conspiracy  is  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma,  who  allegedly 
painted  the  Car  No  DBA-9598  between  26.8.1995  to 
30.8.1995  on  the  asking  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh.  It  is 
alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  this  witness  has 
disclosed  the  identity  of  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
and  Lakhwinder  Singh  as  the  person,  who  came  to  him 
for  the  painting  of  the  car.  If  it  is  so,  this 
witness  must  be  knowing  or  capable  of  identifying 
both  these  accused  persons. 

279.  However,  it  is  admitted  case  of  the 
prosecution  that  on  5.9.1995  when  both  these 
accused  persons  were  arrested  by  PW-238,  Vijay 
Kumar  Inspector,  both  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma  and 
another  witness  Balwinder  Singh  (who  has  not  been 
examined  by  the  prosecution)  were  present  and  on 
their  identity  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was 
arrested  and  thereafter  on  the  identity  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was 
arrested  in  the  presence  of  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma 
and  Balwinder  Singh,  which  means  both  these 
witnesses  have  seen  the  accused,  Gurmeet  Singh  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh. 

280.  However,  despite  this  on  6.9.1995,  when 
these  accused  persons  were  arrested  by  the  CBI  and 


351 


were  produced  before  the  court  of  area  Magistrate 
at  Chandigarh, with  muffled  faces,  both  of  them 
moved  an  application  seeking  their  identity  from 
both  these  witnesses,  fully  knowing  the 
repercussion,  because  they  were  sure  that  both  PW- 
51  and  Balwinder  Kumar  will  not  identify  them  as 
they  never  went  to  his  shop  for  the  painting  of  the 
car  and  they  were  never  known  to  both  these 
witnesses . 


281.  However,      this      application      of  accused 

persons  was  contested  by  the  prosecution  despite 
the  fact  that  it  is  admitted  case  of  PW-247, 
R.S.Punia  that  he  produced  both  the  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Gurmeet  Singh  with  muffled 
faces,  with  an  obvious  purpose  to  move  for  an  test 
identification  parade  from  the  witnesses.  However, 
despite  this  reguest  of  defence  counsel  for 
conducting  a  test  identification  parade  from  the 
witnesses  was  declined  by  the  area  Magistrate  on 
the  plea  of  the  prosecution  that  they  have  no  eye 
witness  for  conducting  the  test  identification 
parade.  This  stand  of  prosecution  was  highly 
objectionable  and  was  false  as  PW-51  and  Balwinder 
Kumar  were  the  two  material  witnesses,  as  far  as 
the  identity  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  as  one  of  the 
persons  met  him  for  painting  of  the  car,  is 
concerned.  Had  the  reguest  of  the  accused  persons 
been  allowed,  the  Cat  must  have  been  out  of  bag  as 
PW-51    and    Balwinder    Singh    would    not    be    able  to 


352 


identify  them  and  the  story  of  prosecution  would 
have  become  false  then  and  there. 

282  However,  this  right  has  been  denied  to  the 
accused  persons  and  if  it  is  so  benefit  of  doubt 
must  be  given  to  the  accused  persons  by  drawing 
adverse  inference,  as  per  the  law  laid  down  by  the 
Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  in  Joginder  Singh  @ 
Naginder  Singh  Versus  State  of  Punjab, 1974  CLR, 
page  588  where  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  held  that 
where  the  reguest  of  the  accused  to  conduct  the 
test  identification  parade  has  been  declined  so  as 
to  deny  a  right  to  set  up  a  defence  of  his  choice 
by  the  accused  persons,  its  benefit  must  go  to 
them.  Similar  principle  was  reiterated  by  the 
Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  Gaddam  Vijaya  Bhaskara 
Reddy  and  others  Versus  State  of  A.P  reported  in 
1999  CRL.L.J.,  page  2715. 

283  Even  otherwise  testimony  of  PW-51  is  of  no 
conseguences  as  far  as  the  identity  and  link  of 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  is  concerned.  First  of  all 
PW-51  has  admitted  that  he  was  not  knowing  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  prior  to  this  occurrence.  At  the  same 
time,  he  alleged  that  accused  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Lakhwinder  Singh  came  to  him  from  26.8.1995  to 
28.8.1995  for  getting  the  car  re-painted  but  this 
stand  of  PW-51  is  falsified  from  the  confession  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  wherein  he  has  alleged  that 
on   26.8.1995   he   was   at   Patiala   throughout   the  day 


353 


and  it  was  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Paramjit 
Singh,  (who  is  being  tried  separately)  who  were 
directed  to  get  the  car  re-painted  and  the  name  of 
Gurmeet  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  never  there. 

284.  To  further  substantiate  this  plea,  learned 

defence  counsel  submitted  that  as  per  PW-51  on 
26.8.1995  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  came  to  the  shop 
with  three  persons,  two  of  whom  were  Sikh  Gentleman 
and  one  without  turban,  which  were  later  on 
identified  as  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  and  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and  they  asked  him 
to  re-paint  the  Car  No.  DBA-9598  in  white  colour 
and  thereafter  from  28.8.1995  to  30.8.1995  the 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  Lakhwinder  Singh  came  to 
him  for  getting  the  delivery  of  the  car.  However, 
this  theory  was  never  disclosed  by  accused  Balwant 
Singh  or  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  their 
confessions . 

285  On    the     contrary,     accused    Balwant  Singh 

alleged  that  he  was  at  Patiala  on  that  date 
throughout  the  day.  At  the  same  time,  the  CBI  has 
intentionally  introduced  PW-50,  Tirlok  Nath  @  Tota, 
and  PW-48,  Ranjit  Singh,  just  to  corroborate  the 
false  stand  of  PW-51,  who  has  otherwise  proved  to 
be  not  known  to  any  of  the  accused  persons 
personally.  The  name  of  any  of  these  witnesses  do 
not  figure  in  the  statement  of  PW-51, under  section 
161  Cr.P.C,    recorded  by  the  Chandigarh  Police. 


354 


286  Not    even    this,    the    prosecution    has  also 

introduced  two  other  witnesses  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh 
@  Maulla  and  PW-69,  Madanjit  Singh  @  Channa,  again 
to  lend  corroboration  and  to  show  the  proximity  of 
PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma  with  Lakhwinder  Singh  and 
even  the  name  of  these  two  witnesses  do  not  figure 
in  the  statement  of  PW-51  recorded  by  the 
Chandigarh  Police. 

287.  Above  all  PW-51  further  admitted  that  till 

6.9.1995  he  was  not  knowing  about  the  identity  of 
any  other  accused  persons  except  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  and  he  further  admitted  that  he  identified 
three  other  persons,  who  came  along  with  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  on  the  basis  of  photographs  and 
he  has  no  where  given  the  description  of  any  of  the 
accused  persons  in  his  statement  recorded  by  the 
Chandigarh  Police  or  by  the  CBI. 

288  On     the     contrary,     during     his  evidence, 

first  of  all  photographs  of  three  accused  persons 
including  Gurmeet  Singh  were  shown  to  him  and  then 
he  was  directed  to  identify  and  he  identified  them. 
Not  even  this  for  the  first  time,  he  appeared  for 
statement  on  26.2.1997  but  on  that  day,  apart  from 
identifying  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  he  had  not 
identified  any  of  the  accused  persons.  On  the 
contrary,  on  the  next  date  of  hearing  i.e  27.2.1997 
he    identified    the    remaining    accused    persons  that 


355 


too  when  the  photographs  were  shown  to  him.  Thus, 
it  is  clear  that  this  witness  was  never  knowing  the 
name  or  identity  of  all  the  remaining  accused 
persons  and  if  it  is  so  the  testimony  of  PW  51 
leads  no  where. 

289  Even   he    story   of   the   prosecution   that  on 

28.8.1995  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  &  Lakhwinder  Singh 
went  to  PW-51  to  collect  the  Car  is  further 
falsified  by  accused  Balwant  Singh,  who  in  his 
confession  admitted  that  on  28.8.1995  the  Car  was 
already  with  him  and  he  along  with  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  &  Dilawar  parked  the  car  near  Gurudwara, 
Phase-IV  Mohali. 

290.  Not       even       this,       there       are  glaring 

discrepancies  and  material  improvement  in  the 
testimony  of  PW-51  and  the  other  prosecution 
witnesses  related  to  this  theory  and  all  these 
makes  his  testimony  highly  doubtful.  To 
substantiate  this  plea,  he  submitted  that  he  has 
introduced  in  a  new  theory  when  he  alleged  that 
after  seeing  the  photo  graph  of  the  car  in  the  news 
paper,      he  talk     to     Inspector     Ram     Kumar  of 

Chandigarh  Police  and  on  his  asking,  Ram  Kumar 
Inspector  took  him  to  DSP  Abrol  and  then  his 
statement  was  recorded.  This  stand  was  never  taken 
by  the  witness  in  his  statement  u/S  161  Cr.P.C.  Not 
even  this,  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  show 
that      how      DSP      Abrol      was      concerned     with  the 


356 


investigation  of  this  case,  when  the  investigation 
of  the  case  were  already  handed  over  to  the  CBI  on 
the  night  of  31.8.1995  itself.  The  prosecution  has 
not  examined  DSP  Abrol  to  explain  this  material 
fact  which  further  raises  doubts  about  the  stand  of 
PW-51 . 

291.  Even  the  recovery  conducted  by  the  Police 
at  the  time  of  arrest  of  accused,  Gurmeet  Singh,  is 
highly  doubtful  and  the  recovery  of  chit, 
Ex.PW51/5,  is  by  way  of  padding  and  it  can  not  be 
believed  that  the  accused,  Gurmeet  Singh,  will  kept 
in  his  pocket  such  a  chit,  if  he  is  actually 
involved  in  the  conspiracy  and  the  crime.  This  fact 
further  shows  that  all  the  proceedings  of  the 
police  relating  to  the  arrest,  recovery  and  link  of 
this  accused  with  the  case  in  hand  is  highly 
doubtful  and  this  accused  is  entitled  for  benefit 
of  doubt. 

292.  Taking  the  case  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh,  learned  defence  counsel  submitted  that  it  is 
alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  this  accused  was 
also  associated  in  the  conspiracy  and  he  along  with 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  got  the  car  re-painted  fully  knowing  that  the 
car  will  be  used  to  kill  Beant  Singh.  However, 
there  is  not  even  an  iota  of  evidence  on  the  file 
to  prove  this  stand  of  the  prosecution. 


357 


293.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  proved  on  the  file 
that  this  accused  was  not  even  present  at 
Chandigarh  during  the  time  of  conspiracy  and  the 
bomb  blast,  as  it  is  proved  on  the  file  that 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  who  is  a  constable  posted 
in  the  security  wing  of  Punjab  Police,  was  sent  on 
duty  as  driver  with  Sant  Ram  Singla,  then  Member 
Parliament  (since  dead)  on  11.7.1995  and  vide 
daily  dairy  no . 9  dt . 11 . 7 . 1995, as  proved  on  the  file 
by  DW-12,  he  left  for  Delhi  and  never  came  back 
till  1.9.1995,  when  he  came  to  Chandigarh  to  get 
his  salary.  On  1.9.1995  he  was  arrested  by  the  CBI 
and  he  was  kept  in  illegal  custody  and  after 
torture,   he  was  linked  with  this  case. 

294.  He  further  argued  despite  the  fact  that 
the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  being  the  Constable, 
was  required  to  inform  his  seniors  about  his  duties 
and  leave  etc,  the  prosecution  has  not  collected 
any  evidence  to  show  that  during  the  alleged  period 
of  conspiracy  and  blast,  he  was  not  on  duty  or  he 
was  on  leave.  On  the  contrary,  DSP  Surinder  Pal  has 
taken  into  possession  the  service  record  of  this 
accused  but  the  entire  record  as  mentioned  in 
recovery  memo,  Ex.PW241/l,  is  prior  to  11.7.1995 
and  there  is  no  record  with  the  Police,  even  in  the 
service  book,  to  show  that  the  accused  was  at 
Chandigarh  during  said  period. 

295.  Even  in  the   service  book  of  this  accused, 


358 


Ex.PW241/2,  there  are  no  entry  after  28.6.1995 
whereas,  as  per  the  index  attached  with  the  service 
book,  it  is  mentioned  that  all  the  transfers  beyond 
the  District  are  to  be  entered  in  this  service 
book.  But  the  relevant  page  of  the  service  book  in 
this  regard  is  missing.  As  such,  the  stand  of 
prosecution  that  the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was 
posted  in  Intelligence  Wing  of  Punjab  Police  upto 
31.8.1995,  is  without  any  basis  and  PW  Surinder 
Pal  Singh  had  failed  to  substantiate  this  fact. 

296.  On  the  contrary,  he  admitted  that  he  had 
not  seen  the  service  record  regarding  the  posting 
of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  after  11.7.1995  to 
31.8.1995  despite  the  fact  that  the  relevant  dates 
regarding  the  conspiracy  and  participation  by  this 
accused  were  26.8.1995  to31.8.1995.  He  has  not 
collected  any  record  to  show  whether  the  accused 
was  on  leave  or  on  duty  during  that  period. 

297.  Thus,  instead  of  conducting  the 
investigation  in  the  proper  prospect  and  right 
direction,  he  has  manipulated  the  records  and 
failed  to  take  the  relevant  record,  which  shows 
that  the  investigations  are  highly  tainted.  Even 
PW-59,  C.Balwinder  Singh,  examined  by  the 
prosecution  admitted  that  after  working  for  about 
5-6  months  after  December,  1994,  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  was  posted  out.  If  it  is  so,  participation  of 
accused   Lakhwinder    Singh    in    the    conspiracy  during 


359 


the  relevant  period  is  completely  ruled  out. 

298.  At  the  same  time  the  entire  story  of  the 
prosecution  to  link  him  with  this  case  proved  in 
vain.  PW-159,  C.Gurbachan  Singh,  failed  to  identity 
the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  in  court  and  as  such 
his  testimony  is  immaterial.  Similarly,  PW-197, 
C.Ranjit  Singh,  who  is  also  police  constable  is 
also  not  relevant  as  he  has  only  identified  the 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  while  opening  account  in 
the  Bank  and  the  stand  of  this  witness  that 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  also  visited  him  is  a  false 
stand  as  he  admitted  that  he  disclosed  this  fact 
for  the  first  time  in  the  court. 

299.  Similarly,  evidence  of  PW-162, 
C.Sukhwinder  Pal  Singh  is  also  of  no  consequences 
as  all  he  says  is  about  the  visit  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  to  the  house  of  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
which  is  not  a  incriminating  circumstance  to  link 
the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  with  the  conspiracy. 
Even  PW-191,  C.Darshan  Singh  says  so  as  was  stated 
by  PW-162  but  his  testimony  is  not  relevant  for  the 
same  reason.  On  the  contrary,  he  admitted  that 
accused,  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  transferred  to  Delhi 
and  he  had  given  him  some  references  of  his 
friends . 

300.  As  per  learned  defence  counsel,  as  far  as 
the      testimony      of      PW-99,      Chamkaur      Singh,  is 


360 


concerned, as  discussed  earlier,  again  he  has  only 
deposed  that  he  had  seen  the  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  on  the  morning  of  31.8.1995,  which  by  itself 
is  not  of  any  use  for  the  prosecution.  Similarly 
the  stand  of  PW-101,  Satwinder  Pal  Singh,  is  also 
not  relevant,  as  far  as  the  identity  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  by  this  witness,  is  concerned.  On 
the  contrary,  when  PW-101  was  examined  for  the 
first  time  on  4.12.1999,  he  had  not  identified  any 
of  the  accused  persons  except  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh.  On  the  contrary,  his  act  and  conduct  was  so 
suspicious  that  the  only  inference  which  can  be 
drawn  was  that  he  is  pressurized  by  the  Police  to 
depose  and  because  of  that  pressure  he  collapsed  in 
the  court  during  his  testimony  and  earlier  also  he 
was  weeping  and  very  confused  and  upset. 

301.  Not  even  this,  he  admitted  that  on 
28.8.1995,  when  the  friends  of  the  accused  Gurmeet 
Singh  visited  his  room,  he  was  not  knowing  any  of 
them  except  accused  Dilawar  Singh  and  it  was 
Gurmeet  Singh,  who  introduced  his  friends  as 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and  Bhai  Ji  and 
later  on  he  came  to  know  that  the  real  name  of  Bhai 
Ji  was  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

302.  Even  otherwise,  he  has  also  identified  the 
all  the  accused  persons  including  accused, 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  on  the  basis  of  photographs  shown 
to    him    during    the    investigations    and    during  his 


361 


testimony  and  as  such  the  said  identification  is  of 
no  consequences  specially  when  no  identification 
parade  was  conducted  to  establish  the  identity  of 
this  accused  from  that  witness.  Not  even  this 
during  his  cross  examination  when  he  was  asked  to 
identify  the  accused  persons  by  name,  he  failed  to 
identify  any  of  the  accused  persons  including 
Lakhwinder  Singh.  As  such,  his  testimony  has  no 
relevancy  as  far  as  the  identity  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  his  participation  in  the 
conspiracy  and  its  execution  is  concerned. 


303.  Even     the     testimony     of     PW-51,  Surinder 

Sharma  is  not  sufficient  to  link  this  accused.  To 
substantiate  this  plea, he  submitted  that  as 
discussed  earlier,  PW-51,  Surinder  Sharma,  was  not 
knowing  any  of  the  accused  persons  and  he  has 
introduced  the  name  of  accused  Lakhwinder,  Gurmeet 
etc  under  the  pressure  of  the  Police  and  his  stand 
that  it  was  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  co- 
accused,  who  got  the  car  re-painted  from  him  is 
already  falsified  from  the  confession  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  &  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  who  alleged  that 
it  was  accused  Paramjit  Singh,  (who  is  being  tried 
separately)  ,  who  was  assigned  the  duty  of  repaint 
of  the  car  and  not  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  if  it  is 
so,  the  stand  of  PW-51,  is  false  as  far  as  the 
identity  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  his 
participation  in  the  conspiracy  and  its  execution 
is  concerned. 


362 


304.  Similarly  as  stated  earlier,  no  test 
identification  parade  was  conducted  despite  the 
asking  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  to  do  so.  If  it 
is  so,  the  stand  of  prosecution  that  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  was  known  to  PW-51  is  also  proved 
to  be  false. 

305.  Even  PW-185,  Mewa  Singh,  who  was 
running  a  tea  shop  near  the  Secretariat  had  failed 
to  identify  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  failed  to 
depose  against  him  and  as  such  his  testimony  is 
also  irrelevant.  Similarly  testimony  of  PW-164,  PC 
Sharma  and  PW-163,  Raj  Mohan, in  whose  presence 
search  of  the  house  of  accused,  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
was  conducted,  is  also  irrelevant  as  nothing 
incriminating  was  recovered  from  the  house  of 
accused . 

306.  As  far  as  the  testimony  of  PW-113, 
Surinder  Kumar  is  concerned,  he  has  alleged  that 
after  the  third  day  of  the  occurrence,  he  along 
with  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @ 
Maula  had  taken  liguor  but  apart  from  this  he  has 
not  stated  anything,  so  his  testimony  is  also  of  no 
use  to  the  prosecution. 

307.  He  further  submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by 
the  prosecution  that  during  the  search  of  accused 
Lakhwinder   Singh,    a   chit,    Ex.PW51/3,    was  recovered 


363 


and  later  on,  the  hand  writing  of  chit  was  compared 
with  the  specimen  hand  writing  of  this  accused 
taken  in  the  presence  of  PW-112,  Chunni  Lai  and  it 
matches  with  the  disputed  chit  and  thus  links  the 
accused  with  this  blast.  However,  this  theory  of 
the  prosecution  is  not  tenable  in  the  eyes  of  law 
nor  there  is  any  evidence  to  prove  this  fact. 
First  of  all,  neither  the  consent  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  nor  the  permission  of  the  Area 
Magistrate  to  take  the  specimen  hand  writing  and 
signatures  of  accused  were  obtained.  The  testimony 
of  PW-112  and  PW-105  in  whose  presence  the  specimen 
hand-writing  of  accused,  Lakhwinder  Singh,  has  been 
allegedly  taken  is  of  no  use  to  the  prosecution,  as 
they  have  not  identified  the  accused  Lakhwinder  in 
the  court  nor  the  accused  was  identified  by  them  at 
the  time  when  the  specimens  were  taken.  Even  the 
DSP  in  whose  presence  the  specimen  were  taken  has 
not  been  examined.  As  such,  it  makes  the  entire 
proceedings  illegal  and  no  reliance  can  be  placed 
on  this  evidence. 

308.  Secondly, PW-166,        T.R.Nehra,        who  has 

allegedly  compared  the  specimen  hand  writing  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  with  the  hand  writing  on 
the  chit,  Ex.PW51/3,  found  that  it  is  not  matching 
with  the  so  called  admitted  hand  writing  and 
signatures  of  the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh.  As 
such,  this  theory  remained  unproved  and  belies  the 
entire  case  of  the  prosecution. 


364 


309.  Similarly,  testimony  of  PW-97,  Shanker  Lai 
Yadav,  who  was  running  a  dhaba  near  Secretariat  and 
it  is  alleged  that  the  accused  Lakhwinder  and  PW- 
114,  Maulla  allegedly  took  meals  at  his  Dhaba  on 
31.8.1995,  is  also  of  no  conseguences  as  he  failed 
to  identify  the  accused  in  the  court.  The  stand  of 
PW-111,  Mohan  Lai,  regarding  the  association  of 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  with  the  remaining 
accused  persons,  is  also  based  on  a  cock  and  bull 
story  and  is  not  reliable  as  the  alleged  visit  of 
these  accused  persons  is  in  the  month  of  May,  1995, 
when  the  conspiracy  was  not  even  conceived.  At  the 
same  time,  none  of  the  accused  was  known  to  this 
witness  prior  to  this  occurrence  and  he  identified 
them  only  on  the  basis  of  photographs,  which  is 
already  held  to  be  not  admissible. 

310.  Similarly,  PW-69,  Madanjit  Singh  @  Channa 
is  also  a  procured  witness,  who  has  allegedly 
introduced  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  to  PW-51  along 
with  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla.  However,  this 
witness  in  his  statement  to  Police  failed  to  name 
PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla,  to  be  present  at  the 
time  of  introduction.  At  the  same  time,  this 
witness  also  admitted  that  on  2.9.1995,  he  took 
liguor  and  what  happened  there  after  is  not  known 
to  him.  Lastly,  he  also  admitted  that  PW-114, 
Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  is  drug  addict  and  he  also 
used  to  take  drug  and  this  fact  alone  shows  that  he 


365 


is  a  procured  witness  and  introduced  just  to  link 
the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  with  the  crime.  This 
fact  is  further  clear  from  the  statement  of  this 
witness,  who  admitted  that  he  did  not  know  how 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  arrested  by  whom  and 
when  his  house  was  arrested  despite  the  fact  that 
he  disclosed  that  he  was  close  friend  of  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh.  Similarly,  the  Police  official, 
who  recorded  the  statement  of  this  witness  was  not 
examined  to  explain  how  he  came  to  know  about  the 
identity  of  this  witness  and  how  he  linked  this 
witness . 

311.  Similarly,    as   far  as   PW-114,    Dalhir  Singh 

@  Maulla,  is  concerned, it  is  proved  on  the  file,  he 
is  illiterate,  poor  and  drug  addict,  as  such  he  was 
an  easy  prey  for  the  CBI  to  introduce  as  a  witness. 
But  his  testimony  is  also  proved  in  vain  to  bring 
home  the  case  of  the  prosecution.  To  substantiate 
his  plea,  he  submitted  that  there  is  no  evidence  on 
the  file  as  to  how  the  police  came  to  know  about 
the  identity  of  this  witness.  DSP  Harbhajan  Ram, 
who  has  allegedly  recorded  the  statement  of  this 
witness  has  not  been  examined  as  a  witness 
specially  when  PW-51,  who  was  the  star  witness  of 
the  prosecution  on  this  aspect  has  not  disclosed 
the  name  of  this  witness.  As  such,  the  testimony  of 
this  witness  is  also  based  on  concocted  fact  and  he 
has  been  introduced  by  the  CBI  later  on  just  to 
corroborate  the  stand  of  PW-51. 


366 


312.  He  further  submitted  that  the  theory  of 
the  prosecution  that  the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
is  the  owner  of  Scooter  No.  PCP-2085  and  the  same 
was  used  by  him  in  the  commission  of  crime,  is  also 
not  proved  on  the  file  as  it  is  admitted  case  of 
the  prosecution  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  is 
not  the  registered  owner  of  this  Scooter.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  admitted  case  of  the  prosecution 
that  the  scooter  was  owned  by  PW-45,  Vijay  Kumar 
Chopra,  who  sold  it  to  PW-  47,  Harjit  Singh.  It  is 
alleged  that  PW-47,  Harjit  Singh  sold  this  Scooter 
to  PW-54,  Deepinder  Mehta  and  then  said  Deepinder 
Mehta  sold  it  to  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh.  However, 
there  is  no  receipt  or  record  to  show  that  PW-47 
ever  sold  the  scooter  to  PW-54.  The  affidavit  Ex.D9 
is  no  document  in  the  eyes  of  law  as  it  is  not 
attested  by  any  Magistrate  or  Oath  Commissioner  and 
it  is  without  date  month  or  year.  Statement  of  PW- 
54,  Deepinder  Mehta  regarding  sale  of  Scooter  to 
Lakhwinder  Singh  as  per  receipt,  Ex.PW54/l,  is 
based  on  after  thought. 

313.  As  a  result  the  fact  remains  that  the 
scooter  in  question,  Ex.P80  still  stands  in  the 
name  of  PW-47,  Harjit  Singh  and  there  is  no 
document  whatsoever  on  the  file  which  was  handed 
over  to  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  with  regard  to 
sale  of  Scooter  to  him.  The  alleged  receipt, 
Ex.PW54/2  can  not  be  termed  as  a  receipt  and  in  his 


367 


cross  examination  PW-54,  Deepinder  Mehta,  failed  to 
disclose  the  date  when  this  transaction  took  place 
and  also  admitted  that  in  his  statement  u/s  161 
Cr.P.C.  it  is  no  where  mentioned  that  two  receipts 
were  prepared  and  one  was  handed  over  to  the  mother 
of  Lakhwinder  and  other  was  obtained  by  him  he  had 
come  to  Chandigarh  for  this  transaction  and  thus 
there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to  link  the 
scooter  with  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh.  As  such  this 
evidence  is  also  insufficient  to  link  the  accused 
with  the  conspiracy. 

314.  He  further  submitted  that  last  piece  of 
evidence  relied  upon  by  the  prosecution  against  the 
accused  is  making  of  an  extra  judicial  confession 
by  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  before  PW-114,  Dalbir 
Singh  @  Maulla  but  as  stated  earlier  the  testimony 
of  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  is  otherwise  not  reliable 
and  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  that  why 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  will  confide  with  PW-114, 
Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla  specially  when  he  is  having 
no  relationship  with  him  and  at  the  same  time  PW- 
114  is  not  in  position  to  help  him  being  a  poor  and 
illiterate  drug  addict. 

315.  Thus  the  alleged  extra  judicial  confession 
of  this  accused  is  also  a  waste  paper  and  is  not 
admissible  in  evidence  specially  when  it  is 
admitted  case  of  PW-114,  that  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  suffered  so  called  extra  judicial  confession, 


368 


when  he  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor  and  the 
Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  C . K . Raveendran  Versus 
State  of  Kerala  reported  in  AIR  2000  Supreme  Court, 
page  369,  held  that  an  extra  judicial  confession 
made  by  an  accused  under  the  influence  of  liquor 
cannot  be  said  to  be  voluntarily  and  truthful  one 
and  liable  to  be  excluded  from  the  preview  of 
consideration.  Not  even  this,  the  extra  judicial 
confession  made  to  an  unknown  person  is  a  weak  type 
of  evidence  as  held  by  the  Hon'ble  Punjab  &  Haryana 
High  Court  in  Gopi  Chand  Versus  State  of  Haryana, 
2005   (4)  RCR,  Criminal,  page  778. 

316.  At  the  same  time,  this  confession  has  not 
been  corroborated  by  any  evidence  and  thus  becomes 
inadmissible  in  evidence  as  held  by  the  Hon'ble 
Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  in  State  of  U.T 
Chandigarh  Versus  Rakesh  Kumar,  2002  (3)  RCC,  page 
472. 

317.  Similarly,  there  is  no  explanation  on  the 
file  as  to  why  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  waited  for 
3  days  for  making  the  confession  before  PW-114,  who 
is  alleged  to  be  his  friend,  which  further  makes 
this  extra  judicial  confession  in  admissible  in 
evidence  as  per  the  law  laid  down  in  Satinder  Pal 
Singh  Versus  State  of  Punjab,  2005  (4)  RCR 
Criminal,  page  494. 

318.  Lastly     he     submitted     that     as  discussed 


369 


earlier  credibility  of  PW-114,  is  already  proved  to 
be  very  low  because  of  his  status  and  antecedents 
and  there  is  no  explanation  as  to  for  what  motive 
accused  will  make  confession  to  PW-114  and  why  he 
reposes  confidence  in  PW-114,  who  is  man  of  weak 
character  and  bad  habits  and  it  further  makes  the 
theory  of  extra  judicial  confession  a  concocted 
piece  of  evidence  and  thus  not  reliable  as  held  by 
the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  Heremba  Brahama  Versus 
State  of  Assam,  AIR  1982  SC,  page  1595.  He 
accordingly  concluded  that  this  evidence  also 
proved  in  vain  to  link  the  accused  with  this  case. 

319.  The  learned  defence  counsel  further 
submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution 
that  on  1.9.1995  PW-178,  S.K.Chadha  inspected  the 
Car  No.  DBA-9598,  Ex.P76,  and  as  per  his  report, 
Ex.PW178/l,  lifted  various  chance  finger  prints 
available  on  the  car  and  there  after  when  he 
compared  those  finger  prints  with  the  specimen 
finger  prints  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  other 
accused  persons,  he  found  that  one  of  the  finger 
prints,  mark  Q-4 ,  is  identical  to  the  specimen 
thumb  impression,  LTS  24 ,  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  as  per  his  report,  Ex.PW178/5,  which  links 
the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  with  the  case  in  hand. 

320.  However,  during  his  cross  examination  this 
witness  could  not  substantiate  his  report  and 
admitted     that      the      specimen      finger     prints  of 


370 


accused,  Lakhwinder  Singh,  are  different  from  the 
questioned  finger  print,  Q-4 ,  as  to  its  character 
as  well  as  formation  of  patterns.  He  admitted  that 
the  questioned  finger  print,  Q-4 ,  is  of  double  loop 
composite  pattern  and  so  is  the  specimen  thumb 
impression  LTS  24,  where  as  he  further  admitted 
that  arch  type  ridges  of  right  side  of  LTS  24  is 
not  available  in  Q-4  and  there  is  no  lake  in  LTS  24 
but  it  is  in  Q-4 . 

321.  Even  otherwise  as  held  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  in  Mohd  Man  Versus  State  of  Rajasthan,  AIR 
1997,  Supreme  Court,  page  2960,  if  the  finger 
prints  are  not  taken  before  the  Magistrate, it  can 
not  be  made  basis  to  convict  a  accused  as 
possibility  of  tempering  and  fabrication  of  the 
evidence  cannot  be  ruled  out.  Similarly  these  can 
not  be  made  basis  as  the  consent  of  the  accused  was 
also  not  obtained  before  taking  the  specimens  as 
held  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State  of  U.P.  Vs 
Ram  Babu  Mishra,  1980  CLR,  page  196  and  Bhola  Ram 
Vs  State  of  Punjab,  1991   (1)  CLR,  page  382. 

322.  As  such,  he  submitted  that  this  evidence 
of  the  prosecution  can  not  be  made  basis  to  link 
the  accused  with  this  case  and  resultantly,  there 
is  no  cogent  and  reliable  evidence  on  the  file  to 
link  the  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  he  is  liable 
to  be  acquitted. 


371 


323.  Taking  the  case  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  learned  defence  counsel  submitted  that  it 
is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  this  accused  was 
the  main  person,  who  hatched  the  conspiracy  and 
motivated  the  remaining  accused  persons  to 
participate  in  the  same  on  the  behest  of  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  Mehal  Singh,  propounder  of  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  based  in  Pakistan  and  there  after  he 
joined  hands  with  remaining  accused  persons  and 
decided  to  kill  Beant  Singh  with  the  help  of  a 
human  bomb  by  using  RDX.  And  to  achieve  this 
purpose,  he  brought  RDX  with  the  help  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  in  the  Truck  of  PW-107,  Sapinder 
Singh  and  then  prepared  the  bomb  and  kept  some  part 
of  the  RDX  in  the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh,  who 
was  also  knowing  about  the  conspiracy  and  was  part 
and  parcel  of  conspiracy. 

324.  However,  there  is  not  even  an  iota  of 
evidence  against  this  accused,  which  could  remotely 
link  him  either  with  the  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  or  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  or 
with  the  conspiracy  to  kill  Beant  Singh  and  its 
execution  in  the  manner  suggested  by  the 
prosecution.  On  the  contrary  the  entire  evidence 
suggests  that  the  conspiracy  if  any  was  hatched  not 
in  Pakistan  but  in  other  countries. 

325.  To  substantiate  this  plea, he  further 
submitted  that   the    first  piece   of   evidence  relied 


372 


upon  by  the  prosecution  to  link  this  accused  is  the 
statement  of  PW-109,  Inderjit  Singh,  before  whom 
Charanjit  Singh  of  Ghaziabad  has  disclosed  that 
accused,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  confessed  before 
him (Charan j it  singh)  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  his  associates  had  killed  the  Beant 
Singh.  However,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  statement  of 
PW-109  is  not  admissible  in  evidence  being  based  on 
hearsay  evidence.  At  the  same  time,  PW-109  has 
failed  to  corroborate  this  theory  of  prosecution 
and  totally  disowned  his  statement  allegedly  made 
by  him  to  the  CBI  u/s  161  of  the  Cr.P.C.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  alleged  that  he  was  detained  by  the 
Police  and  CBI  illegally  and  was  tortured  and  this 
fact  alone  shows  that  the  Police  tried  to  create 
evidence  to  link  this  accused  without  there  being 
his  link. 

326.  He  further  submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by 

the  prosecution  that  Truck  of  PW-107,  Sapinder 
Singh  was  used  by  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Shamsher  Singh  to  bring  RDX  from  a  Village, 
near  Ajnala,  near  the  Indo-Pak  boarder.  However, 
when  he  stepped  into  the  witness  box,  he  deposed 
that  he  never  took  his  truck  to  bring  RDX  as 
alleged  by  the  prosecution  either  on  the  behest  of 
Shamsher  Singh  or  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara.  On  the 
contrary,  he  alleged  that  he  was  picked  by  Punjab 
Police  on  28.10.1995  and  was  kept  in  illegal 
custody  till  14.12.1995,   when  he  was  handed  over  to 


373 


the  CBI  and  then  he  was  forced  by  the  CBI  to  depose 
against  the  accused  persons  and  under  that  threat 
he  was  forced  to  make  a  statement  under  Section  164 
of  the  Cr.P.C.  At  the  same  time,  when  this  witness 
has  appeared  in  the  witness  box,  he  has  not 
supported  the  story  of  the  prosecution.  On  the 
contrary,  he  had  even  denied  making  of  a  voluntary 
statement  u/s  164  of  the  Cr.P.C  and  thus  his 
testimony  also  proved  in  vain  to  link  this  accused 
with  this  case  in  any  manner. 

327.  Similarly,  testimony  of  PW-74,  Amrik 
Singh,  who  is  a  taxi  driver  is  also  of  no 
consequences  as  he  failed  to  identify  any  of  the 
accused  persons  including  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  as  one  of  the  person,  who  traveled  in  his 
taxi  from  Patiala  to  Mohali.  At  the  same  time,  PW- 
231,  who  has  recorded  his  statement,  has  failed  to 
explain  how  he  came  to  know  about  the  identity  of 
this  witness.  As  per  PW-231  it  was  the  Chief 
Investigating  Officer  Saxena,who  asked  him  to 
record  the  statement  of  this  witness  but  DSP  Saxena 
has  denied  this  fact.  On  the  contrary  in  his  cross 
examination,  this  witness  admitted  that  he  was 
taken  to  Delhi  by  the  Punjab  Police  and  was  asked 
to  make  the  statement.  But  since  he  failed  to 
identify  the  accused  his  testimony  proved  in  vain 
to  link  any  of  the  accused  with  the  case. 

328.  He    further    submitted    that    PW-132,  Vinod 


374 


Kumar , Manager  of  Surya  Guest  House,  Delhi  had 
allegedly  identified  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh,  as  the  two  persons  who 
came  to  see  accused  Manjinder  Singh  since 
absconding  but  this  stand  of  this  witness  is  not 
plausible  and  admissible  as  first  of  all, he  was 
shown  the  photographs  of  the  accused  persons  and  he 
identified  the  accused  on  the  basis  of  the 
photographs  and  that  identity  is  not  admissible  in 
evidence  as  discussed  earlier.  At  the  same  time, 
the  entry  relating  to  check  in  by  Manjinder  Singh 
only  for  4-5  hours  is  seems  to  be  a  fabricated 
entry  and  lastly  it  can  not  believed  that  a  Manager 
of  Hotel  remember  the  faces  of  the  persons  after 
six  years  of  having  seen  them,  if  at  all  had  the 
occasion  to  see.  Otherwise,  also  meeting  one 
Manjinder  Singh  by  this  accused  is  by  itself  is  not 
sufficient  to  say  that  he  met  him  for  this 
conspiracy . 

329.  As   far  as   the   testimony  of  PW-130,  Rajesh 

Malhotra  and  PW-133,  Dinesh  Kumar,  is  concerned, 
both  these  witnesses  have  alleged  that  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  used  to  make  International 
calls  from  their  STD  booths  and  he  identified  their 
booths  in  their  possession.  However,  the  evidence 
relating  to  identification  of  booths  is  not 
admissible  in  evidence  being  not  within  the  preview 
of  Section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act,  as  per  the  law 
already    relied    upon    as    it    is    not    discovery    of  a 


375 


fact  distinctly  related  to  the  crime.  In  support  of 
this  plea,  he  has  relied  upon  Anter  Singh  Versus 
State  of  Rajasthan,  reported  in  AIR,  2004  Supreme 
Court,  page  2865,  Prabhoo  Versus  State  of  U.P 
reported  in  AIR  1963  Supreme  Court,  page  1113, 
Ms.Arunwan  Thamvaro  Versus  State  reported  in  AIR 
2005(4)  RCR  (Criminal) , page  121,  State  of  M.P 
Versus  Dhannalal  Moruji  reported  in  1961  (2) 
Cri.L.J,  page  238. 

330.  As  far  as  PW-134,  Murli  Dharan,is 
concerned,  he  has  failed  to  identify  any  of  the 
accused  persons  to  say  that  they  used  to  make 
international  calls  from  his  STD  PCO  at  Nagpur 
during  the  month  of  October  and  November,  1995.  As 
such,  his  testimony  is  immaterial.  As  far  PW-135 
Mahesh  Pal,  is  concerned,  he  has  allegedly 
identified  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  as  two  persons,  who  used  to  come  to  see 
Ashok  Kumar  at  Fatehgarh, (U.P) but  as  discussed 
earlier  the  identification  of  accused  on  the  basis 
of  photographs  shown  to  this  witness  is 
meaningless . 

331.  Similarly  PW-121,  Anil  Bhatia  and  PW-122, 
Bhupinder  Singh,  are  the  witnesses  in  whose 
presence  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  made  the 
disclosure  statements,  Ex.PW121/l  and  Ex.PW121/2. 
However,  the  testimony  of  both  these  witnesses  are 
not       reliable       as       recovery      of      alleged  Map, 


376 


Ex.PW121/3,  depicting  the  Secretariat  etc.,  is  not 
a  discovery  of  a  fact  as  per  the  spirit  of  Section 
27,  as  discussed  earlier  and  thus  can  not  be  made 
basis  to  link  the  accused  Jagtar  singh  Hawara  with 
the  case  in  hand. 

332.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  admitted  case  of 
PW-121  that  Ram  Singh  @  Kuldip  Singh  resided  in 
H.No.A-341  Naya  Gaon  till  September,  1995  and  if  it 
is  so,  it  can  not  be  believed  that  there  can  be 
recovery  of  anything  from  that  house  after  a  period 
of  six  months  on  23. 1.1996. On  the  other  hand,  it 
shows  that  this  document  has  been  fabricated  by  the 
Police  just  to  implicate  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  proved  on  the 
file  that  the  CBI  had  already  raided  that  house  on 
12/13.9.1995  and  if  it  is  so,  there  is  no  guestion 
of  making  any  recovery  in  the  year  1996. 

333.  Similarly  the  report  of  two  experts  namely 
PW-242,  Dr.M.A.Ali  and  PW-234,  S.L.Mukhi,  hand 
writing  experts,  to  establish  the  hand  writing  and 
authorship  of  the  map,  Ex.PW121/3,  in  the  hands  of 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  is  also  not  admissible  because 
first  of  all  PW-234  examined  these  map  with  the 
specimen  hand  writing  of  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  as 
per  his  report  Ex.PW234/l  held  that  it  can  not  be 
linked  with  each  other.  If  it  was  so,  there  was  no 
question  of  any  further  report  but  to  falsely 
implicate    the    accused,     the     same    documents  were 


377 


compared  again  by  PW-242,  M.A.Ali,  who  also  failed 
to  establish  the  authorship  of  the  map  in  a 
convincing  manner  and  as  such  evidence  of  both 
these  witnesses  is  meaningless.  Similarly,  no 
permission  of  any  Magistrate  or  consent  of  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  was  taken  before  taking  his 
specimen  hand  writing  etc  and  if  it  is  so,  as 
discussed  earlier,  those  hand  writings  can  not  be 
made  basis  to  link  the  hand  writing  of  the  accused 
and  thus     the  accused. 

334.  He  further  submitted  that  it  is  alleged  by 

the  prosecution  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
along  with  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  purchased  the 
car  No.  DBA-9598  from  PW-32,  S.K.Dutta  on 
20.8.1995.  However,  as  discussed  earlier  the 
testimony  of  PW-32  is  not  reliable  for  the  various 
reasons  and  at  the  same  time,  he  has  failed  to 
identify  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Haweara  as  the 
other  person,  who  accompanied  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  to 
purchase  the  Car.  At  the  same  time,  he  has  improved 
his  statement  by  saying  that  second  gentleman  was 
aged  about  24  to  28  years  whereas  in  his  statement 
u/s  161  Cr.P.C,  he  disclosed  the  age  of  that 
person  as  21  years.  In  the  court  he  alleged  that 
both  the  accused  came  to  him  firstly  at  2.00  PM  and 
again  at  4.30  PM  but  this  fact  was  also  not 
disclosed  by  this  witness  in  his  statement  u/s  161 
Cr.P.C. 


378 


335.  This  witness  tried  to  say  that  the  second 
person,  who  accompanied  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  who 
represented  himself  as  Basant  singh,  handed  over 
the  bag  containing  cash  to  him  but  this  fact  was 
also  not  disclosed  by  him  in  his  statement  u/s  161 
Cr.P.C  and  this  improvement  was  also  made  by  the 
witness  on  the  behest  of  CBI  to  implicate  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  but  this  endeavor  could  not 
succeed  as  he  has  failed  to  identify  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

336.  Again  during  the  trial  PW-32  alleged  that 
after  getting  the  photo  copies  of  the  documents  of 
the  car,  he  handed  over  the  original  to  Basant 
Singh  and  retained  the  photo  copies  with  him,  but 
this  fact  was  also  not  disclosed  by  him  in  his 
statement  u/s  161  Cr.P.C.  At  the  same  time,  there 
is  no  explanation  on  the  file  as  to  why  this 
witness  failed  to  hand  over  the  documents,  relating 
to  the  sale  of  car  to  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara, 
from  1.9.1995  to  20.9.1995,  despite  the  fact  that 
he  was  repeatedly  interrogated  by  the  CBI  in  that 
regard . 

337.  At  the  same  time  it  is  admitted  case  of 
the  prosecution  and  this  witness  that  he  was  not 
knowing  those  two  persons  personally  or  otherwise 
and  if  it  was  so,  a  test  identification  parade 
should  have  been  conducted  but  same  had  not  been 
conducted    and    as    such    the    identification    of  only 


379 


accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  by  this  witness  for  the 
first  time  in  the  court,  that  too  on  the  basis  of 
the  photographs  already  shown  to  him,  is 
meaningless . 

338.  Above  all,  he  has  failed  to  identify 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  as  the  second  person, 
who  accompanied  the  said  Basant  Singh.  Although 
he  had  identified  the  photo  graph  of  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  as  Ex.PW32/9  but  as  discussed  earlier  this 
identification  is  no  identification  in  the  eyes  of 
law,  specially  when  he  had  not  given  any  details  of 
the  feature  of  those  two  persons.  Thus  the 
testimony  of  this  witness  is  not  only  insufficient 
but  also  procured  and  thus  failed  to  link  the 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  with  the  purchase  of 
car.  If  it  is  so,  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file 
even  to  link  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

339.  Concluding  his  case,  the  learned  defence 
counsel  submitted  that  as  per  the  detailed 
discussion  made  above,  it  is  proved  on  the  file 
that  CBI  has  not  at  all  investigated  the  case 
within  the  law  of  investigations  and  evidence  Act 
but  have  projected  a  false  version  on  the  asking  of 
the  Punjab  Police  then  headed  by  K. P. S.Gill  and 
by  suppressing  the  material  evidence,  fabricated 
the  true  genesis  of  the  occurrence  and  put  forward 
a  concocted  story  only  to  falsely  implicate  the 
accused  persons    except   accused   Balwant    Singh,  who 


380 


has  admitted  his  guilt  and  there  is  not  even  an 
iota  of  evidence  on  the  file  to  show  that  any  of 
the  accused  persons  facing  trial  n  this  case  were 
related  with  this  conspiracy  either  remotely  or 
directly  or  aided  or  abetted  the  commission  of  the 
crime  as  alleged  by  the  prosecution.  Resultantly, 
he  submitted  that  all  of  them  are  entitled  for 
benefit  of  doubt  and  be  acguitted  by  passing  severe 
strictures  against  the  CBI  for  manipulating  the 
facts  on  the  basis  of  false  and  tainted 
investigation . 

Points  for  Determination 

340.  After     due     consideration     of     the  rival 

contentions  of  both  the  parties  and  after  going 
through  the  voluminous  evidence  brought  on  the  file 
by  the  prosecution,  which  is  further  supplemented 
by  the  evidence  led  by  the  defence  and  after 
considering  the  case  law  relied  upon  by  both  the 
parties,  it  comes  out  that  although  accused  Balwant 
Singh  in  his  statement  u/s  313  Cr.P.C  as  well  as 
during  the  trial  and  arguments  admitted  in  clear 
words  and  with  loud  voice  that  he  and  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  had  killed  the  deceased  Beant  Singh, 
when  accused  Dilawar  Singh  blow  him  off,  being  a 
human  bomb,  near  the  car  of  S.  Beant  Singh, 
resulting  into  his  death  and  the  death  of  16  other 
persons.  But  this  theory  has  been  disputed  by 
defence . 


381 


341.  On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  defence 
counsels  have  put  forward  their  own  theory  totally 
different  from  the  facts  admitted  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh,  denying  the  factum  of  killing  of 
Beant  singh  by  assassin  Dilawar  Singh,  being  a 
human  bomb  made  of  RDX  and  other  articles.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  alleged  that  the  true  genesis  of 
the  occurrence  has  been  suppressed  by  the  C.B.I,  in 
collusion  with  the  Punjab  Police  and  a  case  of 
multiple  bomb  blasts  at  different  places,  which 
took  place  because  of  the  lapse  on  part  of  the 
security  agencies,  has  been  converted  into  a  human 
bomb  case  just  to  falsely  implicate  the  accused 
persons . 

342.  Thus  in  order  to  decide  the  controversy 
from  its  beginning  till  the  end  and  to  know  the 
true  genesis  of  occurrence  leading  to  the  blast  and 
resultant  loss  of  life  and  property  and  by  whom  and 
in  what  manner,  the  following  points  are  determined 
and  required  consideration : - 

1.  Whether  on  31.8.1995  at  about  5.10  PM 
assassin  Dialwar  Singh,  being  a  human  bomb 
exploded  himself  near  the  car cade  of  Beant 
Singh  then  chief  Minister  Punjab  near  the 
VIP  gate  of  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat, 
being  armed  with  a  belt  bomb  consisting  of 
RDX  as   the  explosive  with  other  articles, 


382 


killing  the  deceased  Beant  Singh  and 
himself  including  16  other  innocent 
persons  and  causing  severe  injuries  to  15 
others . 

2.  Whether  this  bomb  blast  was  caused  by 
the  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  in  execution 
of  a  conspiracy  hatched  by  accused  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  (proclaimed 
offenders)  with  the  other  accused  persons 
who  were  absconding  and  who  are  facing 
trial  in  this  case  and  all  of  them  were 
the  part  and  parcel  of  that  conspiracy  and 
committed  different  acts  of  omissions  and 
commissions  in  pursuance  of  their 
conspiracy  leading  to  the  killing  of 
deceased  Beant  Singh  and  others. 

3 .  Final  Order . 

343.  After    due    consideration    of    the  marathon 

arguments  of  both  the  parties  and  the  plethora  of 
oral  and  documentary  evidence,  briefed  above,  and 
scanning  and  considering  the  same  as  per  the 
proposition  of  legal  principles,  relied  upon  by 
both  the  parties  in  abundance,  the  decision  on  the 
above  points,  with  reasons  for  its  decision,  is  as 
follows . 


383 


Reasons  for  decision 


Point  No  1 

344.  First  of  all  let  us  take  the  first  point 
for  determination.  As  mentioned  above,  the  first 
and  the  foremost  point  for  consideration  is  to  know 
what  was  the  true  genesis  of  occurrence  leading  to 
blast  at  the  V.I. P.  Gate  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  Civil 
Secretariat  on  31.8.1995  leading  to  the  death  of 
deceased  Beant  Singh,  then  Chief  Minister  of  Punjab 
and  16  other  persons  and  injuries  to  15  other 
persons . 

345.  Since  it  is  a  question  of  fact  required  to 
be  decided  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  led  by  the 
prosecution  and  it  was  also  the  duty  of  the 
prosecution  to  prove  this  fact  with  cogent  and 
reliable  evidence  to  proceed  further. 

346.  The  first  point  for  determination 
mentioned  above  involves  the  following  questions: 

(l.a)  firstly  whether  the  blast  took 
place  at  the  Civil  Secretariat  on 
31.8.1995,  which  is  not  a  disputed  fact, 
was  a  single  blast  caused  by  a  human  bomb 
or  it  was  a  case  of  multiple  bomb  blasts 
at  different  places? 

(l.b)  secondly ,  if  question  no.  (a)  is 
proved  in  affirmative  as  per  the  version 
of  the  prosecution ,  whether  deceased 
Dilawar   Singh    acted   as    a    human   bomb  and 


384 


blew  off  himself 
Chief  Minister 
occurrence ? 


near  the 
leading 


carcade  of 
to  this 


QUESTION  (l.a) 

Whether  the  blast  took  place  at  the  Civil 
Secretariat  on  31 .8 .1995 ,  which  is  not  a 
disputed  fact,  was  a  single  blast  caused 
by  a  human  bomb  or  it  was  a  case  of 
multiple  bomb  blasts  at  different  places? 

347.  Since  this  question  involves  knowing  the 
true  genesis  of  occurrence  and  based  on  factual 
evidence,  let  us  scan  the  evidence  of  the 
prosecution  to  decide  this  controversy. 

348.  As  stated  earlier,  the  case  of  the 
prosecution  is  that  assassin  Dilawar  Singh,  acting 
as  a  human  bomb  blew  off  himself  near  the  carcade 
of  S.Beant  Singh,  Chief  Minister,  Punjab  in 
consequences  of  a  deep  rooted  conspiracy  hatched 
by  the  accused  persons  facing  trial  in  this  case 
along  with  the  other  accused  named  in  the  charge 
sheet.  As  such  let  us  see  whether  the  prosecution 
has  been  able  bring  home  this  fact  or  not? 

349.  Needless  to  say,  it  is  undisputed  case  of 
the  defence  that  deceased  Beant  Singh,  then  Chief 
Minister,  Punjab  along  with  16  other  persons  died 
in  a  blast  on  31.8.1995  near  the  VIP  gate  of  Punjab 


385 


&  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat.  Undisputedly  there  is 
no  direct  eye  witness  to  the  occurrence  to  depose, 
how  the  bomb  blast  took  place  and  by  whom  and  in 
what  manner.  However,  PW-218,  Harkesh  Kumar,  one 
of  the  NSG  Commandos  of  the  Security  Staff,  has 
given  the  first  hand  version  of  the  blast.  But 
apart  from  this  the  entire  case  of  the  prosecution 
is  based  on  circumstantial  evidence  collected  at 
the  spot  and  its  assessment  to  show  the  nature  of 
the  blast. 

350.  Needless  to  say,  it  is  well  settled 
proposition  of  law  that  while  dealing  with  a  case 
of  grave  nature  like  the  present  one,  there  is 
always  a  danger  that  conjecture  and  suspicion  may 
take  the  place  of  legal  truth.  But  to  prove 
conspiracy  hatched  to  commit  a  heinous  crime, 
circumstantial  evidence  brought  on  records  must  be 
such  which  would  have  no  loose  ends  to  tie. 

351.  To  know  the  true  genesis  and  find  the 
guilt  on  the  basis  of  the  circumstantial  evidence, 
the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  has  laid  down  the  guidelines 
from  time  to  time  and  the  process  started  with 
Hanumant  Govind  Nargundkar  Vs.  State  of  M.P,  AIR 
1952,  Supreme  Court,  Page  343  wherein  the  law  was 
laid  down  in  the  following  terms :- 

"It  is  well  to  remember  that  in  cases 
where  the  evidence  is  of  a  circumstantial 
nature,    the   circumstances    from  which  the 


386 


conclusion  of  guilt  is  to  be  drawn  should 
be  in  the  first  instance  be  fully 
established,  and  all  the  facts  so 
established  should  be  consistent  only 
with  the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the 
accused.  Again,  the  circumstances  should 
be  of  a  conclusive  nature  and  tendency 
and  they  should  be  such  as  to  exclude 
every  hypothesis  but  the  one  proposed  to 
be  proved.  In  other  words,  there  must  be 
a  chain  of  evidence  so  far  complete  as 
not  to  leave  any  reasonable  ground  for  a 
conclusion  consistent  with  the  innocence 
of  the  accused  and  it  must  be  such  as  to 
show  that  within  all  human  probability 
the  act  must  have  been  done  by  the 
accused . 

352.  Yet    again    in       Sharad    Birdhichand  Sarda 

Vs. State  of  Maharashtra  AIR  1984,  Supreme  Court, 
1622,  while  dealing  with  circumstantial  evidence, it 
has  been  held  that  the  following  conditions  must  be 
fulfilled  before  a  case  based  on  circumstantial 
evidence  is  said  to  be  fully  proved  including  the 
guilt  of  the  accused  persons :- 

1)  the  circumstances  from  which  the 
conclusion  of  guilt  is  to  be  drawn 
should  be  fully  established.  The 
circumstances  concerned  must  or 
should  and  not  may  be  established. 

2)  The  facts  so  established  should  be 
consistent  only  with  the  hypothesis 
of  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  that  is 
to  say,  they  should  not  be 
explainable  on  any  other  hypothesis 
except  that  the  accused  is  guilty. 

3)  The     circumstances     should     be     of  a 


387 


conclusive  nature  and  tendency. 


4)  They  should  exclude  every  possible 
hypothesis  except  the  one  to  be 
proved;  and 


5)  there  must  be  a  chain  of  evidence  so 
complete  as  not  to  leave  any 
reasonable  ground  for  the  conclusion 
consistent  with  the  innocence  of  the 
accused  and  must  show  that  in  all 
human  probability  the  act  must  have 
been  done  by  the  accused. 


was  further  observed  that: 


"We  can  fully  understand  that  though 
the  case  superficially  viewed  bears  an 
ugly  look  so  as  to  prima  facie  shock 
the  conscience  of  any  Court  yet 
suspicion,  however  great  it  may  be, 
can  not  take  the  place  of  legal  proof. 
A  moral  conviction  however  strong  or 
genuine  can  not  amount  to  a  legal 
conviction  supportable  in  law.  It  must 
be  recalled  that  the  well  established 
rule  of  criminal  justice  is  that 
"fouler  the  crime  higher  the  proof". 
In  the  instant  case,  the  life  and 
liberty  of  a  subject  was  at  stake.  As 
the  accused  was  given  a  capital 
sentence, a  very  careful,  cautious  and 
meticulous  approach  was  necessary  to 
be  made . " 


"The  murder  might  have  been 
committed  in  a  very  cruel  and 
revolting  manner  but  that  may  itself 
be  a  reason  for  scrutinizing  the 
evidence  a  bit  more  closely." 

Cautioning    on    this    aspect,     In  Kashmira 


388 


Singh  Vs    State   of  M.P.,    AIR   1952    SC   159,    it  was 

observed  that  by  the  Hon'ble  apex  court :- 

"The  murder  was  a  particularly  cruel 
and  revolting  one  and  for  that  reason 
it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  the 
evidence  with  more  than  ordinary  care 
lest  the  shocking  nature  of  the  crime 
induce  an  instinctive  reaction  against 
a  dispassionate  judicial  scrutiny  of 
the  facts  and  law." 

354.  Similarly  in  Swaran  Singh  Rattan  Singh  Vs. 
State  of  Punjab,  AIR,   1957,  SC  637,   it  was  observed 

that : - 

"Considered  as  a  whole,  the 
prosecution  story  may  be  true;  but 
between  may  be  true  and  must  be  true' 
there  is  inevitably  a  long  distance 
must  be  covered  by  legal,  reliable  and 
unimpeachable  evidence  before  an 
accused  can  be  convicted." 

355.  Reiterating  same  thought  in  Mousam  Singha 
Roy  and  Others  Vs.  State  of  West  Bengal  (2003)  SLT 
202-III    (2003)    CCR  250    (SC)  =  (2003)    12   SCC   377,  it 

was  held  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  that : - 

"Before  we  conclude,  we  must  place  on 
record  the  fact  that  we  are  not 
unaware  of  the  degree  of  agony  and 
frustration  that  maybe  caused  to  the 
society  in  general  and  the  families  of 
the  victims  in  particular,  by  the  fact 
that  a  heinous  crime  like  this  goes 
unpunished,  but  then  the  law  does  not 
permit  the  Courts  to  punish  the 
accused      on      the      basis      of  moral 


389 


conviction  or  on  suspicion  alone.  The 
burden  of  proof  in  a  criminal  trial 
never  shifts,  and  it  is  always  the 
burden  of  the  prosecution  to  prove  its 
case  beyond  reasonable  doubt  on  the 
basis  of  acceptable  evidence" 
"It  is  also  a  settled  principle  of 
criminal  jurisprudence  that  the  more 
serious  the  offence,  the  stricter  the 
degree  of  proof,  since  a  higher  degree 
of  assurance  is  reguired  to  convict 
the  accused." 

356.  Keeping    into    consideration    the  above 

settled  proposition  of  law  it  comes  out  that  to 
assess  the  nature  of  the  blast,  its  magnitude  and 
the  nature  of  explosive  device  used  for  the  blast, 
the  material  evidence  on  the  file  is  the  evidence 
collected  by  the  investigating  agencies 
immediately  after  the  blast  including  the 
inspection  of  the  spot  by  the  Ballistics  and  other 
experts,  coupled  with  the  first  hand  version  of  the 
blast  given  by  the  persons  present  near  the  site  of 
blast  and  the  reports  of  the  experts  after 
examining  the  incriminating  articles  recovered  from 
the  scene  of  the  crime  showing  the  nature  of  the 
bomb  used  and  its  conseguences  including  the 
medical  evidence. 


357.  In    addition    to    this        the    case    of  the 

prosecution  is  that  immediately  after  the  blast 
two  unidentified  legs  and  a  skull  was  recovered 
from  near  the  Car  of  the  CM  and  later  on,  when 
scene   of   crime  was   examined  by   the   experts    it  was 


390 


found  that  the  blast  has  been  caused  by  a  human 
bomb  and  the  explosive  device  used  is  a  belt  bomb 
wrapped  around  the  waist  consisting  of  RDX  and 
other  explosives  and  missiles  etc.  and  two  legs  and 
the  skull  is  of  the  human  bomb,  who  was  later  on 
identified  to  be  Dilawar  Singh. 


358.  Let    us     scan    evidence    to    ascertain  the 

above  discussed  circumstances  in  the  light  of  above 
settled  proposition  of  law.  First  of  all  let  us 
take  the  statement  of  PW-218,  Harkesh  Singh,  who 
was  one  of  the  NSG  Commandos  of  the  NSG  Squad, 
which  used  to  provide  mobile  security  to  Shri  Beant 
Singh,  then  Chief  Minister  of  Punjab.  Before 
discussing  his  testimony  it  will  be  apposite  to  say 
that  it  is  undisputed  case  of  the  defence  that  the 
convoy  of  the  CM  always  move  in  the  following 
order : 


1.  Vehicle  No . 1 

2.  Then,  Vehicle  No . 2 

3.  Then,   three  Bullet 
proof  Ambassador  Cars 
No. 3, 4   &  5 


Pilot  vehicle  of  CRPF 
Pilot  vehicle  of  NSGs 
Commandos 

Those  days  these  cars 
were  firstly 
Ambassador  Car 
No.PB  0  8  34  6  9 
having 

its  driver  Jagdish 
Singh; 


391 


Secondly  Car  bearing 
registration  No.PB-27- 
-6516  having  driver 
Baljit  Singh;  and 

thirdly  Car  no.   PB  27 
6514  having  driver 
Igbal  Singh. 

4.  Then,  Vehicle  No . 6     :        Escort  vehicle  of 

NSG  Commandos. 

5 .  Then  , Vehicle  No . 7       :        Escort  Vehicle  of 

CRPF 

6.  Then,  Vehicle  No . 8       :  Ambulance 

359.  Giving  the  above  format  of  the  convoy  of 
Chief  Minister,  PW-218,  Harkesh  Singh,  NSG 
Commando,  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995,  Shri  Beant 
Singh,  then  CM  of  Punjab,  left  his  residence  for 
Punjab  Secretariat  at  about  1.25  p.m  while 
traveling  in  Car  No.  PB-08-3469  and  after  arrival 
of  the  CM  at  Secretariat,  all  the  three  Cars  of  CM 
were  parked  in  the  Portico  meant  for  VIP  vehicles 
and  the  drivers  locked  the  Cars  and  two  security 
guards  one  from  the  CRPF  and  one  of  NSG  used  to 
guard  the  vehicles. 

360.  He    further    submitted    that    at    about  5.00 


392 


PM,  they  got  an  information  that  CM  is  about  to 
leave  the  Secretariat  and  accordingly  all  of  them 
took  positions  and  parked  the  vehicles  in  the  above 
order  and  at  about  5.05  PM,  Shri  Beant  Singh,  then, 
CM  came  in  the  Porch  and  at  that  time  he  was  facing 
towards  him  and  NSG  guard  Kultar  Singh  was 
following  him  and  when  they  were  ready  to  move  on 
the  directions  of  their  SP  D . K . Tripathy ,  the  Chief 
Minister  was  talking  to  Dr.Duggal  and  one  other 
person  and  when  he  was  about  to  sit  in  a  car,  one 
person,  who  was  without  any  turban  or  cap  but  who 
was  wearing  a  police  uniform,  rushed  towards  the  CM 
and  thereafter  a  blast  took  place  resulting  into 
lot  of  damage  to  the  vehicles  and  the  building  and 
a  fire  also  started.  He  further  deposed  that  K.Rama 
Rao,  who  was  to  sit  in  his  Gypsy  also  fell  down 
because  of  the  impact  of  the  blast  and  thereafter 
they  rushed  towards  the  Car  of  CM  and  dragged  out 
the  driver  Jagdish  Singh,  who  was  injured  to  a 
safer  distance  but  they  could  not  save  Beant  Singh 
as  the  car  was  aflamed  and  thereafter  the  fire 
brigade  reached  at  the  spot  and  the  further  action 
was  taken. 

361.  Similarly,    PW-78,    Dinesh    Kumar  Tripathy, 

who    was    then    SP    Security    to    the    Chief  Minister, 
also  discloses  the  same  facts  and  disclosed  that  as 
soon   as   the   CM  reached   the  VIP   gate   to   board  his 
car     bearing     registration     PB-08-3469,     he  called 
Ranjodh  Singh  Mann  to  see  him  at  his  residence.  He 


393 


has  also  given  the  description  of  all  the  persons 
who  were  standing  near  the  car  of  CM.  He  further 
deposed  that  when  after  saying  Ranjodh  Singh  Mann 
to  come  to  his  Bungalow,  the  CM  was  to  sit  in  the 
car,  Dr. Anil  Duggal  started  talking  to  him  and  he 
left  to  sit  in  his  Car,  which  was  just  behind  the 
car  of  the  CM  but  when  he  reached  near  the  door  of 
that  car,  a  powerful  blast  took  place  and  he  was 
injured  because  of  the  blast  and  also  become 
unconscious . 

362.  Both  these  witnesses  have  categorically 
deposed  that  there  was  a  single  blast  resulting 
into  death  of  Beant  Singh  along  with  other 
persons.  At  the  same  time  PW-218  has  categorically 
deposed  that  the  blast  took  place  only  when  that 
unknown  person  in  Police  uniform  reached  near  the 
CM.  The  testimony  of  both  these  witnesses  as  to 
the  facts  how  the  blast  took  place  remain 
unrebutted  and  goes  to  show  that  when  the  CM  was  to 
sit  in  the  Car,  one  unknown  person  in  Police 
uniform  comes  near  him  and  then  a  blast  took  place 
as  deposed  by  both  these  eye  witnesses  and  this 
fact  alone  shows  that  it  was  a  case  of  single  blast 
caused  by  a  human  bomb. 

363.  Even  otherwise,  as  discussed  above, 
accused  Balwant  Singh  from  the  very  beginning  of 
the  trial  as  well  as  during  recording  of  his 
statement   u/s   313   Cr.P.C,    categorically  disclosed 


394 


that  on  31.8.1995,  he  along  with  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  killed  Beant  Singh  in  a  bomb  blast,  which  was 
caused  by  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  by  working  as  a 
human  bomb  and  a  belt  bomb  wrapped  around  the  waist 
of  Dilawar  Singh  was  blew  off  by  him  after  reaching 
near  the  Chief  Minister. 

364.  Not  even  this,  in  his  written  explanation 
furnished  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  after  the 
conclusion  of  his  statement  u/s  313  Cr.P.C, 
Ex.D(BS)/A,  he  reiterated  the  above  facts 
justifying  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh  by  him  and 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  because  of  the  atrocities 
committed  by  Beant  Singh  towards  the  Sikh 
community  and  for  claiming  himself  as  messenger  of 
peace  and  incarnation  of  Guru  Gobind  Singh  and  he 
again  reiterated  in  his  own  hands  that  on  31.8.1995 
deceased  Bhai  Dilawar  Singh  wrapped  a  bomb  around 
his  waist  and  collided  himself  with  Beant  Singh  and 
killed  him,  further  saying  that  he  was  also 
involved  in  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh  for  which  he 
has  no  remorse. 

365.  Not  even  this,  as  mentioned  earlier,  on 
18.03.2006,  when  recording  of  the  statement  of  this 
witness  was  started  and  first  guestion  was  put  to 
him  he  read  out  a  four  pages  note,  which  has  been 
marked  A-l  to  A- 4  and  which  was  later  on  exhibited 
as  Ex.D(BS)/A.  Even  prior  to  that  on  24.12.1997  and 
24.1.1998    accused   Balwant    Singh   has    filed  written 


395 


application  admitting  the  facts  mentioned  above. 


366.  Above      all      during      the      recording  of 

statement  of  the  prosecution  witnesses,  when 
statement  of  PW-60,  Raju  Tamir  Haran  was  recorded 
and  he  deposed  that  accused  Balwant  Singh  was 
working  as  Security  guard  with  his  maternal  grand 
father,  Bhushan  Sirhandi  and  he  used  to  have  a 
Scooter,  Ex.P77  and  during  that  time  he  along  with 
his  friend  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  used  to  come  to 
his  house. 


367.  He     also     deposed    that     on     one  occasion 

about  2-3  months  prior  to  the  assassination  of 
Beant  Singh,  he  attended  a  call  which  was  for 
Balwant  Singh  and  the  person  calling  identified 
himself  as  uncle  of  Balwant  Singh  and  was  speaking 
from  Delhi  and  had  asked  him  to  convey  to  Balwant 
Singh  that  he  i.e  Balwant  Singh  should  meet  him  at 
Gurudwara  Seesh  Ganj  ,  New  Delhi  and  on  the  next 
morning  he  conveyed  this  message  to  Balwant  Singh 
and  he  also  identified  the  hand  writing  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh  on  the  slip,  Ex.PW60/A,  on  which  the 
accused  Balwant  Singh  has  written  a  couplet  for 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  when  he  was  going  to  blow 
himself . 


368.  After  the   recording  of  the  examination  in 

chief  of  this  witness,  when  opportunity  to  cross 
examine  was  given  to  accused  Balwant  Singh,   he  gave 


396 


a  writing,  Ex. CD/1  and  stated  that  he  do  not  want 
to  cross  examine  this  witness  as  he  has  stated  the 
truth  and  further  admitted  that  he  has  killed  the 
deceased  Beant  Singh  with  the  help  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  by  way  of  human  bomb.  Not  even  this 
when  PW-95,  Tejinder  Singh  deposed  about  making  of 
extra  judicial  confession  by  accused  Balwant  Singh 
giving  all  the  details  of  conspiracy  and  role  of 
each  and  every  accused  person  from  its  beginning 
till  its  execution  and  when  opportunity  to  cross 
examination  him  was  given  to  accused,  he  suggested 
to  him  that  whatever  has  been  stated  by  him  against 
them  is  correct  except  gua  accused  Gurmit  Singh. 

369.  Last  but  not  least,  even  during  the  course 
of  arguments,  accused  Balwant  Singh  submitted  again 
a  writing  which  was  made  part  of  record  on 
20.4.2007  taking  same  stand. 

370.  It  has  been  alleged  by  learned  defence 
counsels  that  the  admissions  made  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh  in  his  statement  u/s  313  Cr.P.C  can 
not  be  made  sole  basis,  either  to  assess  the 
nature  of  blast  or  to  convict  the  accused  Balwant 
Singh  or  any  other  accused,  as  per  the  law  laid 
down  by  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Mohan  Singh  Vs.  Prem 
Singh,  AIR  2002,  Supreme  Court,  page  3582  and  by  a 
division  bench  of  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  in 
Mohan  Versus  State  of  M.P.   2005   (1)  RCR    page  3. 


397 


371.  However,    after  going  through  the   case  law 

relied  upon  by  defence,  it  comes  out  that  it  was 
never  held  by  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  or  the  High 
Court  that  a  conviction  can  not  be  based  on  the 
confession  made  by  the  accused  during  his  statement 
u/s  313  Cr.P.C  but  it  was  held  that  the  conviction 
can  not  be  based  on  the  basis  of  the  part  admission 
made  in  the  statement  recorded,  u/s  313  Cr.P.C,  if 
the  accused  does  not  confess  and  only  explain  the 
circumstances  appearing  against  him  in  the  evidence 
and  sets  up  his  own  version  and  seeks  to  explain 
his  conduct  pleading  that  he  has  committed  no 
offence . 


372.  Thus   it  was  held  that  where  the  statement 

made  by  accused  is  partly  inculpatory,  the  court 
has  to  accept  it  or  reject  it  in  whole  but  it  can 
not  convict  the  accused  relying  on  the  inculpatory 
part  and  ignoring  exculpatory  part.  However,  it  was 
clearly  held  that  that  if  the  accused  in  his 
examination  u/s  313  of  the  Cr.P.C,  confesses  to  the 
commission  of  the  crime  charged  against  him,  the 
court  can  rely  upon  the  confession  and  proceed  to 
convict  him  and  the  crux  of  the  matter  was  that  an 
admission  made  by  an  accused  u/s  313  Cr.P.C  of  a 
fact  without  admitting  the  guilt  can  not  be  used 
against  him  to  base  a  conviction. 


373.  However,    in  the  present  case,    as  discussed 

earlier,    the    accused   Balwant    Singh   in   clear  terms 


398 


and  repeatedly,  during  the  different  stages  of  the 
trial,  reiterated  that  he  and  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  have  killed  Beant  Singh  by  a  belt  bomb,  which 
was  wrapped  by  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  on  his  waist 
and  blew  off  himself  near  Beant  Singh.  Thus  it  is  a 
case  where  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  has  admitted 
the  nature  of  blast  and  the  nature  of  the  explosive 
device  used  and  the  person  who  acted  as  human  bomb 
and  then  it  is  further  corroborated  by  the  other 
evidence.  Thus  no  further  discussion  is  reguired  to 
burden  this  judgment  to  reach  to  this  conclusion. 
Thus  the  stand  taken  by  both  the  witnesses  i.e  PW- 
218  and  PW-78,  coupled  with  the  admissions  made  by 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  the  evidence  brought  on 
the  file,  clearly  spells  out  that  it  was  neither  a 
case  of  multiple  bomb  blasts  nor  a  case  of  blast  by 
a  remote  control  device  as  alleged  by  the  defence 
but  a  case  of  single  blast  that  too  caused  by  a 
Suicide  Bomber. 

374.  At   the   same   time,    it   is   also   proved  that 

immediately  after  the  blast,  when  the  information 
was  sent  to  the  Police,  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram,  then  SHO 
of  PS  North,  reached  at  the  spot  and  cordoned  the 
area  of  the  blast  and  on  inspection  of  the  spot,  he 
found  about  10  dead  bodies  lying  at  the  spot  and  on 
further  inspection  he  also  found  two  severed  legs, 
one  near  the  Car  of  the  CM  and  the  other  at  the 
distance  of  6  to  7  feet  towards  VIP  gate  and  a 
skull  near  the  Car  without  torso.    He  also  prepared 


399 


a  rough  site  plan  of  place  of  occurrence  Ex. 240/2 
showing  the  existing  state  of  affairs  at  the  scene 
of  crime. 

375.  He  also  deposed  that  Police  photographer 
as  well  as  Dr.Mishra  of  FSL  Punjab  also  came  on 
the  spot  and  as  per  his  request,  both  of  them  took 
the  photographs  of  the  scene  of  crime  from 
different  angles.  The  prosecution  has  relied  about 
70  photographs  Ex.PW119/l  to  Ex.PW119/70  and  PW-240 
has  categorically  stated  that  the  scene  of  crime  as 
shown  in  the  photographs  is  the  same  as  he  had  seen 
on  the  day  of  blast.  He  has  categorically  stated 
that  these  photographs  includes  the  photographs 
taken  by  the  Police  photographs  as  well  as  by  the 
experts  of  FSL,  Punjab  and  experts  called  by  the 
CBI  . 

376.  Not  even  this,  it  is  also  proved  on  the 
file  that  on  1.9.1995  the  investigation  of  this 
case  was  entrusted  to  CBI  and  PW-247,  R.S.Punia, 
then  DSP,  CBI,  was  appointed  out  as  Chief 
Investigating  Officer.  As  per  the  directions  of  PW- 
247,  PW-248,  S.N.Saxena  was  deputed  to  reach  the 
spot  and  start  investigations  and  he  has  also 
deposed  that  after  reaching  at  the  spot,  Nanha  Ram 
handed  over  the  above  photographs  to  him  and  when 
he  inspected  the  spot  he  found  the  scene  of  crime 
in  the  same  manner  as  shown  in  these  photographs. 


400 


377.  Not    even    this,    the    CBI    has    also  deputed 

the  experts  to  examine  the  scene  of  crime  and  one 
of  these  experts  was  PW-165,  Roop  Singh,  a 
ballistics  expert  and  he  has  also  deposed  that  he 
examined  and  inspected  the  scene  of  occurrence  from 
1.9.1995  to  3.9.1995  and  under  his  direction  and 
supervision,  the  CBI  official  has  taken  into 
possession  certain  material  articles  from  the  spot 
and  the  same  were  examined  by  him  in  the  Laboratory 
in  various  divisions  with  the  help  of  other 
experts . 


378.  Even  the  major  parts  of  the  damaged  car  of 

the  Chief  Minister  were  also  taken  to  the 
Laboratory  along  with  all  the  incriminating 
articles  lifted  from  the  spot,  recovered  from  the 
accused  persons  and  otherwise,  the  details  of  which 
are  mentioned  in  the  reports,  Ex.PW165/l  to 
Ex.Pwl65/7,  consisting  of  bullet  proof  Ambassador 
car  no.  PB-08-3469  and  the  debris  collected  from 
the  scene  of  crime  including  the  blood  stained  and 
shattered  clothes , metallic  pieces,  glass  pieces, 
dust,  damaged  paper  pieces,  flesh  and  bone  pieces, 
wall  plaster  pieces,  aluminum  metal,  paper  and  card 
board  pieces,  burnt  plastic  pieces,  the  sweepings 
collected  from  the  floor  of  the  car  of  the  CM, 
damaged  and  shattered  identity  cards,  blood  stained 
turbans,  rexine  and  foam  pieces,  damaged  number 
plate  of  the  car  of  CM  etc. 


401 


379.  It  is  further  proved  on  the  file  that  all 
the  experts  after  examining  the  scene  of  crime  and 
all  the  above  mentioned  incriminating  articles  in 
different  laboratories  of  CFSL  i.e  in  the 
biological,  physical  and  ballistics  division,  as 
per  different  reports,  specially  the  reports  of 
PW-165  i.e  Ex.PW165/l  to  Ex.PW165/7  and  PW-248/2 
of  Ms.  Balinder  Kaur,  an  expert  of  CFSL, 
Chandigarh,  concluded  that  a  powerful  improvised 
explosive  device  (IED)  had  exploded  at  the  rear 
left  side  just  near  the  dickey  portion  of  the  car 
of  the  CM,  in  which  he  was  going  to  sit,  at  a 
height  of  above  3  feet  above  the  ground  level  and 
high  explosive  of  about  2  kg  of  quantity  along  with 
other  missiles  in  the  form  of  spherical  iron  walls, 
iron  nuts,  bolts,  thick  iron  rebuts  etc  were  used 
on  the  blast  and  on  the  basis  of  examination  of  two 
shattered  legs  and  skull  it  was  also  concluded  that 
the  explosive  device  was  wrapped  on  the  torso  of 
the  person,  who  could  have  acted  as  a  suicide 
bomber . 

380.  One  of  the  objections  as  to  the 
authenticity  of  the  report  of  PW-165,  raised  by  the 
defence  was  that  this  witness  has  no  where  stated 
that  he  has  examined  two  legs  and  a  skull,  when  he 
examined  the  scene  of  crime. 

381.  However,  after  considering  the  factual 
aspect  with  the  legal  principles,   it  comes  out  that 


402 


there  is  no  force  in  this  plea  because  during  the 
cross  examination,  this  witness  has  deposed  that  he 
was  taken  to  the  mortuary  by  the  CBI  officials  and 
perhaps  it  was  in  General  Hospital  Sector  16, 
Chandigarh  and  he  was  categorical  as  to  the 
examination  of  two  legs  and  the  skull  and  its 
inspection  by  him.  As  such  there  is  nothing  on  the 
file  to  disbelieve  the  stand  taken  by  this  witness 
as  to  his  expert  opinion  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
blast  and  its  magnitude. 

382.  At  the  same  time,  this  witness  has  further 
justified  his  opinion  by  saying  that  if  explosive 
device  is  exploded  while  being  kept  or  planted 
inside  or  beneath  the  car,  the  entire  car  get 
shattered  into  pieces  and  there  will  be  a  definite 
mark  regarding  the  seat  of  explosion,  known  as 
crater  but  he  has  not  found  any  such  symptoms,  when 
he  examined  the  scene  of  crime  as  well  as  the  car 
of  CM  and  as  such  there  is  no  possibility  of  any 
blast  from  inside  the  car  or  planted  beneath  it.  He 
further  deposed  that  after  examining  debris  he 
found  traces  of  RDX  which  shows  that  RDX  was  used 
as  explosive  to  blast. 

383.  Not  even  this,  another  expert  Ms.Balinder 
Kaur  of  CFSL  Chandigarh  was  also  called  at  the  spot 
and  she  has  also  examined  the  scene  of  crime  and 
the  incriminating  articles  taken  into  possession  by 
PW-240,    on    1.9.1995    along   with    the    cotton  swabs, 


403 


taken  from  the  car  of  the  CM  by  Balinder  Kaur 
personally  and  which  were  were  taken  to  the 
Laboratory  on  the  same  day  and  as  per  the  report, 
Ex.PW248/2,  which  is  admissible  in  evidence  under 
the  provisions  of  Section  293  of  the  Cr.P.C, 
Mrs. Balinder  Kaur  after  examining  all  these 
articles  for  the  chemical  analysis,  concluded  that 
the  traces  of  RDX  and  PETN,  which  are  high 
explosives,  were  detected  in  the  articles  recovered 
from  the  spot. 


384.  As     far    as     the     grounds     pointed    out  by 

learned  defence  counsel  to  challenge  the 
investigation  and  the  conduct  of  the  investigating 
agency  is  concerned, no  doubt  there  are  some  gaps, 
lacunas  and  infirmities  in  the  investigations 
carried  out  by  the  Investigating  Agency,  however, 
keeping  in  view  the  nature  of  crime  and  the 
circumstances  in  which  the  investigations  were 
taken  over  by  the  CBI,  no  material  dent  can  be 
inferred  as  far  as  the  material  question  as  to 
assess  the  nature  of  blast  and  its  consequences  are 
concerned . 


385.  The  main  vehicle  i.e  the  car  of  the  CM,  in 

which  he  was  going  to  sit,  when  this  blast  took 
place  and  which  was  the  target  of  the  assassin,  was 
duly  examined  by  the  expert  witnesses  including  PW- 
165,  Roop  Singh  a  Ballistics  Expert,  who  has  based 
his   opinion   as   to   the   nature   of   the  blast   and  the 


404 


device  used,  after  examining  the  damaged  car  and 
its  parts  and  other  incriminating  articles  found 
near  the  same.  Similarly,  PW-165  has  given  a 
definite  report  as  to  the  magnitude  of  the  blast, 
its  nature,  the  device  used  and  the  explosives 
involved  with  complete  details  of  the  articles 
examined,  its  identity  and  nature  and  the  tests 
applied.  To  further  clarify  it,  it  comes  out  that 
the  main  report  of  PW-165,  in  this  regard  is  Ex.PW- 
165/1  and  a  perusal  of  this  report  shows  that  all 
the  incriminating  articles  recovered  from  the  spot 
from  1.9.1995  to  3.9.1995  by  PW-240,  Inspector 
Nanha  Ram  of  Chandigarh  Police  and  the  other 
Investigating  Officers  of  the  CBI,  were  sent  to  him 
and  all  those  articles  were  in  27  parcels  duly 
sealed  with  the  seal  of  'AK'  and  all  these  parcels 
contained  the  debris  collected  from  the  spot  as 
well  as  the  damaged  number  plate  of  the  car  of  the 
CM,  its  tail  light  and  after  examination  of  all 
these  articles  in  the  various  laboratories  coupled 
with  the  detailed  examination  of  the  scene  of 
explosion  by  PW-165  along  with  other  experts  from 
1.9.1995  to  3.9.1995  including  the  examination  of 
the  badly  damaged  car  no . PB-08-34 69  which  was  the 
target  of  the  blast  as  well  as  two  legs  and  a 
skull,  a  final  report  was  prepared  to  assess  the 
nature  of  blast  and  it  was  concluded  that  this 
blast  is  a  single  blast,  caused  by  a  powerful 
improvised  explosive  device  by  a  human  bomb.  Not 
even     this,     he     has     also     identified     all  those 


405 


incriminating  articles  in  the  court  as  part  of 
articles  Ex.P-1  to  Ex.P-218  except  those  articles 
which  have  not  been  examined  by  him. 

386.  The  same  was  also  confirmed  by  the  other 
expert  witnesses  including  Mrs  Balinder  Kaur  of 
CFSL,  Chandigarh,  who  has  also  examined  the  scene 
of  the  crime  and  took  into  possession  certain 
incriminating  articles  as  mentioned  in  her  report, 
Ex.PW248/l  and  corroborated  the  opinion  of  PW-165. 
Then  there  are  photographers  of  Chandigarh  Police, 
CFSL,  Chandigarh  and  the  CBI,  who  took  the 
photographs  of  the  scene  of  crime  and  those  were 
supported  by  the  ocular  version  of  the  experts  and 
the  Investigating  Officers,  who  have  also  assessed 
the  scene  of  crime. 

387.  PW-241  to  PW-248,  who  have  investigated 
the  case  at  one  stage  or  the  other,  after  taking 
over  of  the  investigation  by  the  CBI,  categorically 
deposed  as  to  what  was  done  on  what  day  and  they 
have  also  deposed  as  to  the  proceedings  conducted 
by  them  on  1.9.1995.  At  the  same  time,  PW-178, 
Dr . S . K . Chadha,  an  expert  of  CFSL,  Delhi  has  also 
proved  that  on  the  directions  of  the  CBI,  he 
inspected  the  suspected  car  No.  DBA-9598  in  the 
Police  Station  and  also  examined  the  scene  of 
crime.  Even  PW-165  has  prepared  an  inspection  memo 
after  inspecting  the  scene  of  crime  and  he  had 
deposed    that     he     took     that     report    with    him  to 


406 


prepare  his 
circumstances, 
record . 


final  report  and  under 
the    same   was    not   made  part 


these 
of  the 


388.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  regarding  non-production  of  first 
inspection  memo  allegedly  prepared  by  PW-248,  is 
concerned,  PW-248,  has  categorically  explained  that 
he  has  prepared  a  separate  inspection  memo  while 
inspecting  the  spot  but  the  same  was  made  part  of 
the  case  diary  and  he  further  stated  that  he  had 
got  prepared  a  scaled  site  plan  of  the  scene  of 
crime,  Ex.PW248/3,  which  was  got  prepared  from 
Architects,  which  clearly  indicates  the  position  of 
the  dead  bodies  lying  on  the  spot  as  well  as  the 
position  of  Carcade  of  the  CM  at  the  time  of  its 
explosion,  depicting  the  entire  nature  of  the  scene 
of  crime.  Not  even  this,  during  the  cross 
examination  of  PW-248,  the  case  diary  was  produced 
in  the  court  and  it  was  observed  that  the 
observation  memo  dated  1.9.1995  was  part  of  the 
case  diary  and  nothing  was  recovered  or  seized  vide 
this  memo  and  as  such  it  was  rightly  not  made  part 
of  the  record. 

389.  All  the  articles,  taken  from  the  spot  by 
various  Investigating  Officers  as  per  the 
directions  of  the  experts  have  been  sealed  and  sent 
to  CFSL  and  the  details  of  all  these  articles  are 
duly    mentioned     in     the     reports     of     the  experts 


407 


including  Ex.PW-165/1  to  Ex.PW-165/7  and  Ex.PW- 
248/2.  Even  in  the  report  Ex.PW165/7,  it  is 
mentioned  that  the  wind  screen  was  also  examined 
while  preparing  this  report. 

390.  Non-production  of  the  Video  cassette 
allegedly  prepared  at  the  spot  showing  the  scene  of 
crime,  itself  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  it  was 
so  done  with  an  intention  to  suppress  any  fact 
specially  when  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  file  to 
say  that  any  Videography  of  the  scene  of  the  crime 
was  also  conducted  and  if  so  by  whom  and  on  whose 
direction . 

391.  PW-240  has  no  where  admitted  the  making  of 
the  video  film  of  the  scene  of  the  crime  as  alleged 
by  learned  defence  counsel.  On  the  contrary,  he  has 
alleged  that  he  has  got  only  the  scene  of 
occurrence  photographed  by  the  Police  Photographer 
and  there  is  no  other  evidence  on  the  file  to  show 
this  fact.  The  plea  of  learned  defence  counsels 
that  in  the  report  of  Manik  Sabharwal,  mark  CQ/1, 
there  is  mention  of  study  of  the  video  film,  can 
not  be  made  basis  to  say  that  any  video  film  was 
prepared  by  the  Investigating  agencies  because  this 
report  has  not  proved  on  the  file.  Even  if  it  was 
so,  it  has  been  categorically  explained  by  PW-248 
that  there  was  no  source  of  making  of  video  film 
and  its  authenticity,  as  such,  same  was  not  made 
part  of  record. 


408 


392.  Above  all,  if  the  defence  was  so  concerned 
with  the  need  of  Video  film  it  can  easily  summon 
the  same  in  the  defence  evidence  or  this  fact  can 
be  corroborated  by  summoning  Mr.Manik  Sabharwal  in 
the  defence  as  this  witness  has  not  been  examined 
by  the  prosecution  and  his  report  is  also  not 
relied  upon  but  it  has  not  been  so  done  which 
shows  that  as  far  as  the  factual  position  of  the 
scene  of  crime  and  its  nature  is  concerned,  it  is 
not  disputed  as  the  only  purpose  of  the  video  film 
was  to  depict  the  same  which  is  otherwise  proved  on 
the  file  in  view  of  the  photographs  and  the  ocular 
version  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  as  discussed 
earlier,  including  the  recovery  of  two  legs  and  a 
head  of  unidentified  person. 

393.  Report  of  Manik  Sabharwal  an  expert  of  the 
Army,  mark-CQ/1,  is  part  of  the  record.  No  doubt, 
the  prosecution  has  not  examined  this  witness  to 
prove  his  report  and  opinion  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  blast.  However,  the  same  was  brought  on  record 
by  the  defence  by  putting  the  same  to  the  Chief 
Investigating  Officer.  As  such,  no  adverse 
inference  can  be  drawn  as  the  prosecution  has  not 
relied  upon  the  same,  specially  when  it  can  be 
considered  and  taken  into  consideration  once  it  was 
brought  on  record  by  the  defence  itself.  As  stated 
earlier,  the  defence  was  also  at  liberty  to  summon 
and  examine  this  witness  in  defence  so  as  to  refute 


409 


the  authenticity  of  the  nature  of  the  blast  and  the 
scene  of  crime  as  proved  on  the  file  by  the 
prosecution . 

394.  PW-240    has     categorically    explained  that 

the  photographs,  Ex.PW119/l  to  Ex.PW119/94  includes 
the  photographs  prepared  and  taken  by  the  Police 
photographers,  expert  of  FSL,  Punjab  and  by  the 
experts  of  the  CBI  and  it  also  includes  the 
photographs  of  the  two  legs  and  a  skull.  Even 
otherwise  PW-119,  Dr.Gopal  Ji  Mishra,  has  also 
brought  the  negatives  of  the  photographs  and 
produced  the  same  in  the  court.  But  those  were 
returned  to  him  with  the  permission  of  the  court 
and  he  had  categorically  deposed  that  he  reached  at 
the  place  of  occurrence  at  about  5.45  p.m.  i.e 
immediately  after  the  blast  and  took  about  70 
photographs.  He  further  deposed  that  on  2.9.1995  he 
went  to  the  mortuary  and  took  the  photographs  of 
the  two  legs  and  skull  which  are  Ex.PW119/71  to 
Ex.PW119/94.  No  doubt,  some  of  the  photographs 
produced  in  evidence  by  him  were  not  taken  by 
him, but  it  makes  no  difference  as  to  its 
admissbility .  Not  even  his,  this  witness  has  also 
explained  that  when  he  took  the  photographs  of  the 
seat  of  blast  near  the  car  of  CM, he  found  that  the 
right  leg  was  found  near  the  rear  left  wheel  of  the 
blasted  car  and  the  second  leg  was  found  at  the 
entrance  gate  of  Secretariat.  He  also  explained 
that  the  shoe  was  in  right  leg.  Thus  the  testimony 
of  this  witness   further  proves   the   authenticity  of 


410 


photographs  as  well  as  scene  of  crime  as  shown  in 
these  photographs.  Not  even  this,  the  photographs 
of  the  scene  of  occurrence  are  further  proved  by 
the  statement  of  the  Police  Officers,  who  visited 
the  scene  of  occurrence  including  PW-242  to  PW-248, 
who  are  the  main  Investigating  Officers.  As  such, 
this  plea  has  no  basis  to  assail  the  investigations 
conducted  by  the  Chandigarh  Police  or  the  CBI. 


395.  Non-production  of  the  vehicles  involved  in 

the  blast  is  no  ground  to  draw  any  adverse 
inference  qua  the  investigations  specially  when 
factum  of  blast  is  not  disputed.  Since,  no  specific 
part  of  the  belt  bomb  used  by  the  assassin  was 
traceable  or  available  at  the  spot,  its  recovery  is 
thus  not  possible. 


396.  The    recovery    of    weapons    of    the  various 

security  agencies  has  no  relevancy  as  it  was  never 
the  case  of  prosecution  or  the  defence  that  any 
firing  took  place  at  the  scene  of  crime.  As  such 
the  fact  how  many  weapons  were  damaged  and  how  many 
were  not  traceable  after  the  blast  is  not  relevant 
as  far  as  the  present  trial  is  concerned.  Not  even 
this,  a  perusal  of  the  court  record  shows  that 
during  the  pendency  of  commitment  proceedings 
before  the  CJM,  Chandigarh,  the  Commandant  first 
Battalion,  HAP,  Ambala  City  moved  an  application 
for  the  release  of  the  arms  and  ammunition  of  their 
Battalion,    which  were   taken   into  possession  by  the 


411 


Chandigarh  Police  at  the  time  of  inspection  of  spot 
and  on  that  application  the  learned  CJM,  Chandigarh 
vide  his  order  dated  23.2.1996  released  the  same  to 
the  applicant  and  this  fact  further  document  shows 
that  all  the  arms  and  ammunition  found  at  the  spot 
were  taken  into  possession  and  were  later  on 
released  having  no  link  with  this  case. 

397.  No  doubt,  the  investigating  officers  were 
required  to  prepare  the  site  plans  of  the  various 
places  of  recoveries  of  incriminating  articles  in 
consequences  to  the  disclosure  statements  of  the 
accused  persons  or  otherwise  and  those  have  not 
been  made  but  it  does  not  make  the  recovery 
proceedings  doubtful  ipso  facto.  At  the  same  as  far 
as  the  recovery  of  incriminating  articles  from  the 
scene  off  crime  is  concerned,  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram, 
SHO  and  the  first  investigating  officer,  has 
categorically  stated  that  he  prepared  a  site  plan 
of  scene  of  crime,  Ex,PW240/2,  showing  all  the 
existing  state  of  affairs  at  the  spot  immediately 
after  his  reaching  at  the  spot  even  before  starting 
recovery  proceeding  of  incriminating  articles. 

398.  No  adverse  inference  for  not  recording  the 
statements  of  the  two  drivers  of  the  two  other 
cars  of  the  CM  or  other  material  witnesses,  for  the 
purpose  of  registration  of  FIR  or  investigations, 
can  be  drawn  because  none  of  them  were  the  eye 
witnesses   in  true   sense  to   say  that  they  have  seen 


412 


the  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  while  detonating  the 
bomb.  At  the  same  time,  the  FIR  is  to  be  registered 
just  to  initiate  the  investigation  and  it  is  not 
the  be  all  and  end  all  of  the  case,  specially  in  a 
case  of  present  nature. 

399.  Not  even  this,  it  is  also  come  in  evidence 
that  the  injured  witnesses,  who  were  near  to  the 
Car  of  the  CM  including  drivers  of  the  other  car, 
Baldev  Singh  Mann,  MLA  and  Dhanwant  Singh  etc  were 
disoriented  because  of  the  injuries  and  the 
medicines  given  to  them  and  were  not  in  position  to 
disclose  anything. 

400.  As  such  the  authority  relied  upon  by  the 
learned  defence  counsels  titled  Ganesh  Bhawan  Patel 
Vs.  State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1979,  Supreme  Court, 
page  135  is  of  no  help  to  the  defence  because  in 
that  case  there  were  the  eye  witnesses  of  the 
murder,  whose  statement  were  not  recorded 
immediately  and  on  those  facts  their  testimony  were 
found  to  be  doubtful.  However,  at  the  same  time, 
the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  has  reiterated  the  well 
settled  principle  of  law  that  a  delay  of  few  hours, 
simplicitor,  in  recording  the  statement  of  the  eye 
witnesses,  may  not,  by  itself,  amount  to  a  serious 
infirmity  in  the  prosecution  case.  But  it  may 
assumes  such  a  character  if  there  are  concomitant 
circumstances  to  suggest  that  the  investigator  was 
deliberately    marking    time    with    a    view    to  decide 


413 


about  the  shape  to  be  given  to  the  case  and  the  eye 
witnesses  to  be  introduced. 

401.  However,  in  the  present  case,  it  is 
undisputed  case  of  the  prosecution  that  there  was 
no  eye  witness  of  the  occurrence  in  true  sense  and 
as  such  delay  in  examination  of  those  persons  is 
immaterial.  At  the  same  time,  immediately  after  the 
blast,  the  first  duty  of  the  Police  and  the  persons 
reached  at  the  spot  was  to  save  the  life  of  injured 
persons  and  not  to  confront  them  as  to  how  the 
occurrence  took  place. 

402.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  regarding  the  alleged  delay  in  the 
registration  of  FIR  is  concerned,  again  in  this 
case,  as  stated  earlier  the  first  preference  of  the 
Police  and  the  Officers  reached  at  the  spot 
including  the  injured  persons  but  who  were  in  their 
senses,  was  to  save  as  many  lives  as  possible  by 
providing  immediate  medical  help  to  the  injured.  At 
the  same  time,  the  occurrence  in  question  took 
place  at  5.15  p.m  and  the  FIR  was  recorded  at  7.30 
PM  on  the  statement  of  Constable  Pala  Ram.  At  the 
same  time,  the  nature  of  the  offence  itself  shows 
that  the  registration  of  the  FIR  was  required  only 
to  initiate  the  investigations  as  it  was  not  a  case 
based  on  the  eye  witness  account  but  was  a  case  of 
sudden  bomb  blast  caused  witjout  giving  any  warning 
and  time  witness  that. 


414 


403.  Similarly,  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsels  regarding  the  delay  of  registration  of  FIR 
is  also  inconsequential  because  of  the  fact  that 
after  transfer  of  the  investigations  to  the  CBI,  it 
has  only  re-registered  the  case  to  formally  set  its 
machinery  in  motion  for  the  investigations  and  it 
was  not  barred  from  investigating  the  case  till  the 
re-registration  of  the  FIR  as  it  was  not  a 
condition  precedent  to  start  the  investigations. 
Above  all,  no  prejudice  whatsoever  has  been  caused 
to  the  accused  persons  because  of  this,  as  none  of 
the  accused  persons  have  been  named  in  the  FIR.  As 
such,  this  plea  of  learned  defence  counsels  proved 
to  be  a  plea     for  the  sake  of  arguments  only. 

404.  For  the  same  reasons,  no  benefit  can  be 
given  to  the  defence  for  the  faults  committed  by 
the  Investigating  Officers  for  not  recording  the 
statement  of  those  witnesses  and  the  authority 
relied  upon  by  learned  defence  title  Subhash  Vs. 
U.T,  1976  Criminal  Law  Journal,  page  1521,  and  Sevy 
and  others  Vs.  State  of  Tamilnadu,  1981,  Criminal 
Law  Journal,  page  736  are  of  no  help  to  the 
defence . 

405.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
in  Laxmi  and  others  Vs.  State  of  U.P.,  2002  (4), 
RCR  (Criminal)  ,  Page  82,  reiterated  the  well 
settled      principle      of      law      that      every  faulty 


415 


investigations  or  padding  in  evidence  can  not  by 
itself  lead  to  total  demolition  of  the  prosecution 
case,  if  it  can  otherwise  stand,  ignoring  these 
fallacies.  Similarly  in  Mundrika  Mahato  Vs.  State 
of  Bihar,  2002  (2)  RCR,  Criminal,  page  627,  again 
the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  reiterated  this  fact  and 
held  that  it  also  cannot  be  ignored  that  in  large 
number  of  criminal  cases,  the  investigations  are 
neither  perfect  nor  scientific  but  no  benefit  of 
this  fact  can  be  given  to  the  defence,  if  the  facts 
are  otherwise  proved  and  it  by  itself  cannot  lead 
to  a  conclusion  that  the  accused  are  innocent.  But 
the  only  reguirement  is  of  extra  caution  by  courts 
while  evaluating  the  evidence  keeping  in  view  the 
facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  nature 
of  the  offence  involved.  Similar  principle  was 
reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  the  latest 
authority  titled  Acharaparambath  Pradipan  Vs.  State 
of  Kerala,  2007  (1)  RCR,  page  929.  Accordingly  in 
the  present  case  as  mentioned  above  the  facts  and 
circumstances  in  which  this  blast  took  place  and 
involving  number  of  deaths  and  number  of  injured 
persons  and  the  fact  that  the  investigations  were 
initially  initiated  by  Chandigarh  Police  and  then 
taken  over  by  the  CBI,  there  is  every  possibility 
that  there  must  have  been  some  infirmities  and 
deficiencies  on  the  part  of  the  Investigating 
Officers  may  be  due  to  over  sight  or  otherwise  but 
these  have  no  effect  on  the  over  all  conclusion  of 
the  Investigating  Agencies. 


416 


406.  Similarly,  no  doubt  there  are  some 
discrepancies  in  the  testimony  of  the  Police 
witnesses  and  the  private  witnesses  relating  to  the 
factual  position  but  it  is  not  sufficient  to 
disprove  the  case  of  the  prosecution  specially  when 
the  entire  case  is  based  on  circumstantial  evidence 
on  all  aspects  of  the  case  including  the  nature  of 
the  blast,  factum  of  conspiracy  and  the  link  of  the 
accused  persons  with  the  same.  In  this  regard,  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Inder  Singh  Vs.  State,  AIR 
1978,  Supreme  Court,  page  1091,  while  interpreting 
the  aspect  of  proof  of  guilt  beyond  reasonable 
doubts  and  the  standard  of  proof  required  held  that 
"Credibility  of  testimony  oral  and  circumstantial 
depends  considerably  or  on  a  judicial  evaluation  of 
totality,  not  isolated  scrutiny  while  it  is 
necessary  that  proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  should 
be  adduced  in  all  criminal  cases,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  it  should  be  perfect  proof  beyond 
reasonable  doubt  is  a  guideline,  not  a  fetish  and 
guilty  man  can  not  get  away  with  it  because  the 
truth  suffers  some  infirmity  when  projected  through 
human  process.  The  judicial  quest  for  perfect  proof 
often  accounts  for  police  presentation  of  fool 
proof  concoction.   We  must  be  realistic." 

407.  At  the  same  time,  the  objection  raised  by 
learned  defence  counsel  as  to  link  evidence  to 
prove   the   intactness   of  the   incriminating  articles 


417 


recovered  from  the  spot  till  it  reaches  to  various 
laboratories,  is  of  no  consequences,  keeping  in 
view  the  nature  of  those  articles  and  the  fact  that 
all  these  articles  were  taken  into  possession  in 
the  presence  of  the  experts  and  as  per  their 
directions  and  as  such  there  is  no  question  of  any 
interference  with  their  contents.  At  the  same  time, 
all  the  incriminating  articles  recovered  from  the 
spot  were  necessary  only  for  the  purpose  of 
assessing  the  nature  of  the  blast  and  the  explosive 
device  used  and  it  has  no  direct  link  with  the 
accused  persons  and  at  the  same  time  the  factum  of 
blast  is  duly  proved  and  not  disputed.  As  far  as 
the  plea  of  learned  defence  counsel  regarding 
recovery  two  diaries,  one  from  near  the  dead  body 
of  Yash  Pal  and  other  from  near  the  dead  body  of 
Swarn  Singh,  is  concerned,  since  nothing 
incriminatory  was  found  in  these  diaries,  those 
were  not  relevant  and  were  not  made  part  of  the 
record . 

408.  In  addition  to  this,    all  the  Investigating 

Officers  of  the  case  have  categorically  deposed 
that  all  the  incriminating  articles  recovered  from 
the  spot  or  from  the  possession  of  the  accused 
persons  were  sealed  and  kept  in  the  same  condition 
till  it  reaches  the  expert.  Not  even  this,  almost 
all  the  articles  recovered  from  the  spot,  were  in 
the  presence  of  experts  and  as  per  their  directions 
and    as     such    there     is    nothing        to    doubt  about 


418 


intactness  of  those  articles  specially  when  the 
nature  of  those  articles  itself  is  sufficient  to 
say  that  there  can  not  be  any  possibility  of  any 
interference  with  the  same.  At  the  same  time  during 
evidence  all  these  incriminating  articles  have  been 
produced  in  the  court  and  identified  by  the 
material  witnesses,  concerned  with  the  same  and 
exhibited  in  the  court  as  material  articles  Ex.P- 
158  to  Ex.P-219,  which  further  shows  that  this  plea 
is  without  any  substance  and  have  any  effect  on  the 
case  of  prosecution.  Even  the  photographs  of  all 
the  accused  persons  identified  by  the  various 
witnesses  during  investigation  has  been  produced  on 
record  as  mentioned  in  para  55of  the  judgement. 

409.  Even     PW-248     has     deposed     that     all  the 

articles,  which  were  recovered  from  the  spot  on 
2.9.1995  and  3.9.1995  as  well  as  the  RDX  recovered 
from  the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  was  taken  by 
him  from  the  CBI  malkhana  Chandigarh  and  was 
carried  to  Delhi  and  was  deposited  with  the  CFSL 
authorities.  As  far  as  the  question  of  recovery  of 
incriminating  articles  from  the  accused  persons 
including  the  recovery  of  the  RDX  from  the 
possession  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  and  its  link  with 
the  case  is  concerned  that  will  be  considered  when 
the  case  of  accused  persons  will  be  discussed 
individually . 

409.1.  To  further  clarify  this  point, 
it    comes    out    that,    as    is    clear    from  the 


419 


testimony  of  PW-240,  Inspector  Nanha  Ram, 
first  of  all,  he  took  into  possession 
certain  incriminating  articles  from  the 
spot  as  mentioned  in  Ex.PW-179/6,  in  the 
presence  of  Balinder  Kaur,  an  expert  of 
CFSL,  Chandigarh  and  all  those  articles 
were  sealed  in  27  parcels  as  per  the 
details  mentioned  in  the  recovery  memo  in 
the  presence  of  PW-179,  SI  Ved  Parkash 
and  sealed  with  the  seal  of  'NR'  and  were 
sent  to  CFSL,  Chandigarh  on  1.9.1995 
itself  through  SI  Ved  Parkash  and  after 
examining  those  articles  along  with  the 
specimen  seal  impression,  Ms. Balinder 
Kaur  conducted  the  test  and  prepared  her 
report  Ex.PW-248/2  dated  12.9.1995  vide 
which  she  detected  RDX  and  PETN,  which 
are  highly  explosive  substances,  thus 
this  report  shows  that  all  the 
incriminating  articles  recovered  from  the 
spot  on  1.9.1995  reached  the  CFSL  on  the 
same  day  and  therefore  there  is  no 
question  of  missing  of  any  link  evidence 
in  this  regard. 

409.2.  Then,  it  further  comes  out  that 
when  the  investigations  were  taken  over 
by  the  CBI  and  the  scene  of  crime  was 
examined  by  Sh.SN  Saxena,  DSP,  CBI  with 
the  help  of  PW-228,    P.K.Dhawan,  Inspector 


420 


Crime  Branch,  Chandigarh  and  PW-191, 
Neeraj  Sharma,  in  the  presence  of  the 
experts  of  CFSL  Delhi,  who  also  examined 
and  inspected  all  the  vehicles  damaged  in 
the  blast  as  per  the  details  mentioned  in 
the  observation-cum-seizure  memo,  Ex . PW- 
228/1  and  during  the  inspection  of  the 
scene  of  crime,  some  more  incriminating 
articles  including  blood  samples 
collected  from  the  spot  from  where  the 
dead  bodies  were  retrieved;  sweepings 
from  the  floor  of  the  front  side  and  the 
right  rear  side  of  the  car  and  its  dickey 
of  car,  which  was  target  of  blast; 
clothes  and  articles  of  the  deceased 
persons  lying  at  the  spot;  and  other 
articles  as  detailed  in  memo  Ex.PW228/l 
and,  all  those  samples  were  sealed  in  23 
parcels,  sealed  with  the  seal  of  'AK'  and 
after  preparation  of  a  sample  seal,  all 
those  parcels  were  kept  by  the  1.0.  and 
then  on  the  next  day,  again  some  more 
incriminating  articles  were  collected 
from  the  scene  of  crime  by  A.K.Ohri  in 
the  presence  of  PW-228,  PK  Dhawan  and  PW- 
191,  SI  Neeraj  Sharma,  as  per  the  seizure 
memo  Ex.PW-191/A  and  Ex.PW-191/B  and  five 
more  parcels  of  all  these  articles  were 
prepared  and  sealed  and  thereafter  all 
these   parcels   were   handed   over   to  Satish 


421 


Kumar,  Assistant  Malkhana,  CBI , Chandigarh 
on  3.9.1995,  as  is  clear  from  the  receipt 
given  by  said  Satish  Kumar  on  these 
recovery  memos. 

409.3.  In  addition  to  this,    it  is  also 

proved  that  PW-248  after  completing  the 
proceedings  at  Chandigarh  on  20.9.1995 
left  for  Delhi  along  with  all  the  above 
articles  which  were  temporarily  kept  in 
the  malkhana  of  the  CBI,  Chandigarh  as 
admitted  by  DW9,  Prahlad  Singh,  and  then 
deposited  these  articles  in  the  CFSL, 
Delhi  on  21.9.1995.  As  such,  there  is  due 
explanation  on  the  file  that  all  these 
articles  reached  CFSL  in  intact  condition 
and  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  doubt 
the  veracity  of  the  prosecution  in  this 
regard.  At  the  same  time,  in  Smt.Meena 
Gopalkrishna  Vs .  State  of  Maharashtra 
1993  Crl.L.J.  3634,  the  Hon'ble  Bombay 
High  Court  held  that  where  it  is  proved 
that  the  incriminating  articles  were 
sealed  at  the  spot  and  reached  the 
Chemical  Examiner  in  the  same  state  and 
the  Chemical  Examiner  also  found  the 
seals  to  be  intact  and  similar  to  the 
samples  seal  impression,  there  is  no 
question  of  disputing  the  intactness  of 
the     case     property     even     if     the  police 


422 


officials  with  whom  it  remained  and  who 
took  the  same  to  the  Chemical  Analyst  has 
not  been  examined,  as  there  is  no 
possibility  of  tampering  with  the  same  in 
transit.  At  the  same  time,  PW-248  has 
categorically  stated  that  he  himself  took 
all  the  case  properties  to  the 
Laboratories  and  till  the  time,  it 
remained  in  his  possession,  neither  he 
inteferred  with  its  contents  nor  he  had 
allowed  anybody  to  do  so. 

410.  Even  PW-247,  R.S.Punia,  one  of  the 
Investigators  of  the  case  has  deposed  that  on 
3.9.1995,  when  he  inspected  the  scene  of 
occurrence,  he  also  did  not  notice  any  crater 
beneath  the  body  of  the  car,  which  further  shows 
that  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  disbelieve  the 
stand  taken  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  that  it  was  a 
single  bomb  blast  caused  by  Dilawar  Singh  as  a 
suicide  bomber. 

411.  Above  all,  this  court  can  also  assess  the 
nature  of  blast  from  the  scene  of  crime  as  shown  in 
the  photographs  and  site  plan  prepared  by  PW-240, 
Nanha  Ram,  Ex.PW240/2.  And  a  perusal  of  the  above 
mentioned  records  and  the  reports  of  experts  and 
the  facts  and  circumstances  under  which  this  blast 
took  place  coupled  with  after  effects,  it  comes  out 
that  it  was  a  single  blast  caused  by     an  improvised 


423 


explosive  device,  being  strapped  on  the  waist  of  a 
human  being,  who  detonates  the  same  in  close 
proximity  to  the  target,  i.e  the  car  of  the  Chief 
Minister  because  no  crater  was  found  on  the 
ground,  which  indicates  that  the  device  has  been 
initiated  above  the  ground  level . 

412.  In  addition  to  above  discussed  evidence, 
it  is  also  proved  on  the  file  that  Jagdish  Singh, 
driver  of  the  Car  No.  PB-08-3469,  which  was  the 
target  of  the  assassin;  Kultar  Singh  NSG  Guard;  ASI 
Jagdish  Singh  another  PSO;  Swaran  Singh  PA  and  Yash 
Pal  Bali  other  PA,  to  the  chief  Minister  and 
Dr. Anil  Duggal,  who  all  were  present  near  the  car 
of  Chief  Minister,  died  immediately  after  the  bomb 
blast,   either  at  the  spot  or  in  the  Hospital. 

413.  Apart  from  this,  the  other  dead  persons 
were  also  in  the  vicinity  of  the  place  of  blast. 
This  fact  itself  shows  that  there  was  only  one 
blast,  as  all  those,  who  died  were  those,  who  were 
either  near  the  deceased  CM  or  nearby  his  car  as 
per  the  details  mentioned  in  the  site  plan,  Ex.PW- 
240/2,  showing  the  scene  of  crime  as  it  exists  at 
the  spot,  immediately  after  the  blast.  Not  even 
this,  it  is  further  proved  that  only  car  of  CM, 
which  was  target  of  blast,  was  damaged  extensively, 
as  is  clear  from  the  photographs,  Ex.PW-119/1  to 
Ex. PW-119/71 .  And  lastly  even  the  major  damage  to 
the   building   was    also    near    that    place    only.  This 


424 


aspects  further  fortified  the  above  conclusions 
that  it  was  case  of  single  blast  caused  by  a  human 
bomb . 

414.  This  fact  is  further  fortified  from  the 
fact  that  the  maximum  damage  has  been  occurred  to 
the  left  rear  side  of  the  car  of  the  CM  and  the  CM 
was  going  to  sit  in  the  car,  from  that  side,  and 
all  the  persons  died  immediately  after  the  blast 
were  those,  who  were  present  near  that  car,  which 
further  shows  that  the  seat  of  the  explosion  is 
above  the  ground  level  near  the  left  rear  side  of 
the  car  and  this  blast  is  possible  only  when  caused 
by  a  suicide  bomber,  through  an  IED  wrapped  around 
the  torso  of  the  body,  specially  when  it  is  further 
proved  that  only  torso  of  the  body  of  human  bomb 
was  missing  and  two  legs  and  skull  were  intact  and 
were  recovered  from  the  spot. 

415.  At  the  same  time,  the  damage  caused  to 
the  building  and  the  surroundings  further  shows 
that  the  blast  took  place  out  side  the  car  and  not 
inside  the  car.  The  two  bomb  theory  and  the  use  of 
incendiary  bombs  as  propagated  by  the  learned 
defence  counsels,  is  not  supported  by  any  evidence, 
circumstantial  or  otherwise,  specially  when  it  is 
clear  that  any  sort  of  bomb  explosion  will  result 
into  fire  and  damage  which  is  main  effect  of  a 
incendiary  blast.  Similarly,  the  plea  of  learned 
defence    counsel    that    one    of    the    bomb    blast  took 


425 


place  inside  the  car,  is  also  baseless  as  it  can 
not  be  believed  that,  had  there  been  a  crater  at 
the  place  of  blast,  it  would  have  not  been  noticed 
by  so  many  Investigating  Officers,  who  inspected 
the  spot  and  the  expert  witnesses,  including  PW- 
165,  who  has  categorically  stated  that  he  had  not 
found  any  crater  at  the  spot  or  under  the  car  and 
he  had  also  justified  his  opinion  in  this  regard 
with  scientific  reason,  which  appeals  to  the  mind 
of  this  court  also. 

416.  As  far  as  the  reliance  of  learned  defence 
counsel  on  a  news  item  published  in  this  regard  in 
The  Tribune  dated  8.9.1995,  copy  of  which  is 
Ex.DWl/4,  is  concerned,  this  is  inadmissible  in 
evidence  as  per  the  law  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  in  Samant  N. Balakrishna  etc.,  Vs. 
George  Fernandez  and  others  etc.  reported  in  AIR 
1969  Supreme  Court,  page  1201,  and  as  reiterated 
buy  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Laxmi  Shetty  Vs. 
State  of  Tamilnadu,  AIR,  1998,  Supreme  Court,  page 
1274,   where  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that 

"Judicial  notice  can  not  be  taken  of  the 
facts  stated  in  a  news  item  being  in  the 
nature  of  hearsay  secondary  evidence, 
unless  proved  by  evidence  aliunde.  A 
report  in  a  newspaper  is  only  hearsay 
evidence.  A  newspaper  is  not  one  of  the 
documents  referred  to  in  Section  78(2)  of 
the  Evidence  Act  by  which  an  allegation 
of  fact  can  be  proved.  The  presumption  of 
genuineness    attached  under    Section    81  of 


426 


th8e  Evidence  Act  to  a  newspaper  report 
can  not  be  treated  as  proved  of  the  facts 
reported  therein.  A  statement  of  fact 
contained  in  a  newspaper  is  merely 
hearsay  and  therefore  inadmissible  in 
evidence  in  the  absence  of  the  maker  of 
the  statement  appearing  in  court  and 
deposing  to  have  perceived  the  fact 
reported . " 

417.  Accordingly,  in  the  present  case  neither 
DW-1  nor  DW-3,  Prabhjot  Paul  Singh,  who  was  the 
Principal  Correspondent  of  'The  Tribune'  those  days 
proved  the  contents  of  the  news  item  Ex.DWl/4.  As 
such,  anything  published  in  the  news  paper 
regarding  the  bomb  blast  can  not  consider  for  any 
purpose  whatsoever  either  far  or  against  the 
defence . 

418.  Thus  in  view  of  the  above  discussed  legal 
and  factual  evidence,  the  irresistible  conclusion 
is  that  it  was  a  case  of  single  bomb  blast  caused 
by  a  improvised  high  explosives  device,  initiated 
by  an  assassin,  who  bore  the  bomb  in  a  belt  around 
his  waist  and  initiated  the  same  with  the  power 
source  of  dry  cells/battery,  with  the  help  of  an 
on-off  switch, in  the  close  proximity  to  the  car  of 
the  CM  and  thus  it  was  a  case  of  human  bomb  blast 
and  there  is  no  scope  of  doubt  in  the  mind  of  this 
court  to  come  to  this  conclusion. 

QUESTION  (l.b) 


427 


If  question  no.  (a)  is  proved  in 
affirmative  as  per  the  version  of  the 
prosecution,  whether  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  acted  as  a  human  bomb  and  blew  off 
himself  near  the  carcade  of  Chief  Minister 
leading  to  this  occurrence? 

419.  Undisputedly ,  as  per  finding  question (1 . a) 
it  is  proved  on  the  file  that  on  31.8.1995,  the 
deceased  Beant  Singh  and  15  other  persons  died  in  a 
blast  in  the  Civil  Secretariat  of  Punjab  caused  by 
a  suicide  bomber,  whose  two  legs  and  a  skull  was 
found  at  the  site  of  blast.  Now  the  question  comes 
whether  deceased  accused  Dilawar  Singh  acted  as  a 
human  bomb  and  caused  this  blast  and  those  two  legs 
and  skull  were  of  him. 

420.  In  this  regard,  it  is  further  proved  on 
the  file  that  after  the  bomb  blast,  PW-240, 
reached  at  the  spot  and  found  that  there  is  no  eye 
witness  to  give  the  circumstances  leading  to  the 
blast  and  when  he  went  to  the  P.G.I,  he  recorded 
the  statement  of  PW-30,  C.Pala  Ram,  Ex.PW30/3  and 
PW  Pala  Ram  has  also  given  the  same  account  of 
blast  as  was  given  by  PW-218  and  thereafter  a 
formal  FIR  was  registered. 

421.  The  case  of  prosecution  is  that  two 
severed  legs  and  the  skull  recovered  from  the  spot 
were  taken  to  General  Hospital,  Sector  16 
Chandigarh,  after  conducting  the  proceedings  u/s 
174    of   the   Cr.P.C.    Although   a   lot   has   been  argued 


428 


by  learned  defence  counsels,  disputing  the  recovery 
of  two  legs  and  skull  from  the  spot  on  31.8.1995 
itself  and  its  identity  alleging  that  there  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  that  these  limbs  were 
recovered  on  31.8.1995  from  the  spot  and  later  on 
deposited  in  the  P.G.I  for  postmortem  examination. 

422.  However,  this  plea  is  without  any  basis 
because  there  is  sufficient  evidence  on  the  file, 
which  proves  that  immediately  after  the  blast, 
these  two  legs  and  the  skull  were  recovered  from 
the  spot  by  PW-240,  Nanha  Ram  but  admittedly  he 
failed  to  take  proper  measures  to  keep  the  same  in 
proper  custody. 

423.  First  of  all,  as  stated  earlier,  PW-240 
deposed  that  when  the  information  was  sent  to  the 
Police,  he  reached  at  the  spot  and  cordoned  the 
area  of  the  blast  and  on  inspection  of  the  spot,  he 
found  about  10  dead  bodies  lying  at  the  spot  and  on 
further  inspection  he  also  found  two  severed  legs, 
one  near  the  Car  of  the  CM  and  the  other  at  the 
distance  of  6  to  7  feet  towards  VIP  gate  and  a 
skull  near  the  Car  without  torso. 

424.  In  addition  to  this,  as  stated  earlier, 
PW-119,  Dr.Gopal  Ji  Mishra,  Director  Forensic 
Science  Laboratory  Punjab,  who  have  visited  the 
scene  of  crime  immediately  after  the  blast,  also 
proved   that   when   he   took   the   photographs,    the  two 


429 


legs  and  skull,  were  lying  near  the  blasted  Car  of 
the  CM  and  he  has  also  given  the  description  of  the 
spots  where  the  same  were  lying.  As  such,  this  fact 
also  proves  the  presence  and  recovery  of  two  legs 
and  the  skull  immediately  after  the  blast.  Even  PW- 
165  has  deposed  that  he  had  also  seen  and  examined 
two  legs  and  the  skull  recovered  from  the  spot  and 
in  the  report,  Ex.PW-165/1,  he  has  referred  that  on 
the  basis  of  the  scientific  examination  of  the  two 
legs  and  the  skull  and  the  complete  destruction  of 
the  corresponding  torso,  coupled  with  other  facts 
and  circumstances,  suggests  that  the  exploded  IED 
was  on  the  body  of  the  person,  who  had  tied  the 
explosive  belt  around  his  waist.  As  far  as  the  plea 
of  the  learned  defence  counsel  that  PW-165  has  not 
prepared  any  separate  inspection  memo  of  these 
limbs  is  concerned,  it  has  no  force  because  PW-165 
has  clarified  that  he  had  inspected  and  examined 
these  limbs  in  the  mortuary  of  General  Hospital, 
Sector  16,  Chandigarh  in  the  presence  of  all  other 
experts  and  officials  of  the  CBI  and  he  had  also 
prepared  a  sketch  of  the  limbs  after  measurement 
and  also  made  a  report  in  this  regard  and  then 
prepared  a  final  report  of  the  entire  inspection 
Ex. PW-165/A. 

425.  Above     all,      Ex.PW6/42,      is     the  inquest 

proceedings  of  these  limbs  prepared  by  PW-240,  on 
31.8.1995  itself  at  the  spot,  and  in  this  report 
also,    he    has    categorically   mentioned      that  these 


430 


limbs  were  recovered  from  near  the  blasted  car  of 
CM  as  shown  in  the  site  plan  prepared  in  the 
proceedings.  Although,  the  learned  defence  counsel 
alleged  that  PW-176,  SI  Gamdoor  Singh  was  also 
present  during  the  inguest  proceedings  but  has  not 
stated  about  the  two  legs  and  the  skull.  But  there 
is  no  force  in  this  plea  as  this  witness  has 
categorically  stated  that  he  was  not  present  when 
the  inquest  proceedings  were  prepared  by  PW-240  but 
he  was  assigned  the  duty  of  a  postmortem 
examination  of  the  dead  bodies  and  two  legs  and  the 
skull . 


426.  At    the    same    time,     the    moot    question  is 

whether  any  of  the  remaining  dead  bodies  recovered 
from  the  spot  were  having  any  of  the  limbs,  similar 
to  the  limbs  recovered  from  the  spot,  missing. 
However  after  scanning  the  entire  medical  evidence 
of  prosecution  including  the  statements  of  Doctors, 
who  have  conducted  the  postmortem  examination  and 
the  statement  of  PW-240,  who  was  the  first  person 
to  visit  at  the  spot,  it  comes  out  that  the  answer 
to  this  question  is  in  negative  because  there  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  to  show  that  apart  from  these 
two  unidentified  legs  and  head  any  other 
unidentified  limb  was  recovered  from  the  spot  or 
any  of  the  dead  bodies  recovered  from  the  spot  were 
having  any  of  the  limbs  missing,  similar  to  the 
unidentified  limbs  recovered  from  the  spot. 


431 


427.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  that  one  headless  body  of  deceased  Rajinder 
Parsad  was  recovered  from  the  spot  which  raises 
doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  the  skull  alleged 
to  be  of  assassin  human  bomb,  is  concerned,  there 
is  no  force  in  this  plea  because  PW-4, 
Dr . J . K . Kalra,  who  has  conducted  the  post  mortem 
examination  of  deceased  Rajinder  Parsad,  has 
categorically  deposed  that  when  he  examined  the 
dead  body  of  deceased  Rajinder  Parsad,  it  was 
intact  and  not  headless  technically. 

428.  On  the  contrary,  upper  part  of  the  head  of 
the  front  portion  was  missing  but  the  skull  was 
attached  with  the  neck  and  as  such  the  skull 
recovered  from  the  spot  which  was  having  the  face 
intact  can  not  be  linked  with  the  Rajinder  Parsad 
and  it  was  neither  the  case  of  the  prosecution  nor 
the  defence.  This  fact  is  further  clear  from  the 
skiagrams  of  the  x-ray  films  Ex.PW4/14  to  Ex.PW4/20 
coupled  with  the  report  of  Dr. P. D.Jain,  Ex.PW4/21 
and  the  nature  of  the  external  injuries  found  on 
the  dead  body  specially  injury  no.l,  which  was 
"mutilated  lacerated  wound  around  the  neck  below 
the  level  of  chin  in  front  of  occipital  bone  at  the 
back,  upper  part  of  the  head  was  missing  except  a 
small  piece  of  scalp  attached  to  it",  which  means 
the  injuries  were  found  on  the  head  of  Rajinder 
Parsad  and  only  part  of  th8e  skull  were  missing  and 
from   this,    it    can    not    be    said    that    the    head  was 


432 


totally  chopped  off  and  body  was  headless.  At  the 
same  time,  PW-4,  was  not  cross  examined  by  the 
learned  defence  counsels  on  this  point,  which 
further  shows  that  the  body  of  Rajinder  Parsad  was 
not  headless  in  technical  sense. 

429.  Needless  to  say,  once  it  is  proved  that 
all  the  remaining  dead  bodies  were  either  complete 
or  were  duly  identified,  there  is  nothing  on  the 
file  to  doubt  the  recovery  of  these  limbs  i.e  two 
legs  and  one  complete  skull,  as  shown  in  the 
photographs  Ex.PW119/71  to  Ex.PW119/94,  from  the 
place  of  occurrence.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  proved 
that  only  torso  of  these  two  legs  and  the  head  was 
missing  and  all  the  remaining  dead  bodies  were 
complete  and  duly  identified. 

430.  Simply  because  of  the  fact  that  there  was 
some  confusion  to  PW-240  as  to  whether  he  deposited 
the  limbs  in  the  General  Hospital,  Sector  16  or  in 
the  P.G.I,  it  can  not  be  said  that  the  factum  of 
the  recovery  itself  is  doubtful  specially  when  the 
inquest  report  of  these  limbs  was  prepared  on 
31.8.1995  itself.  No  doubt,  as  submitted  by  learned 
defence  counsel,  there  is  some  confusion  as  to 
where  these  two  legs  and  the  skull,  was  deposited 
by  PW-240  after  its  recovery  on  31.8.1995.  Whereas 
it  is  admitted  that  it  reaches  P.G.I  only  on 
4.9.1995  and  kept  in  the  dissection  hall  of  the 
anatomy    department    whereas     the    police  witnesses 


433 


alleged  that  it  was  kept  in  the  Mortuary  of  the 
P.G.I  but  this  aspect  has  no  bearing  on  the  factual 
aspect  as  to  the  recovery  of  these  limbs  from  the 
spot . 

431.  At  the  same  time,  the  confusion  as  to  the 
deposit  of  these  limbs  is  also  clear  from  the 
testimony  of  PW-240  and  it  is  duly  explained  on  the 
file  as  how  these  limbs  reached  P.G.I.  In  this 
regard,  a  perusal  of  the  inquest  proceedings 
Ex.PW6/42,  shows  that  after  the  recovery  of  these 
limbs  from  the  spot,  PW-240,  moved  an  application 
with  the  Duty  Doctor  of  G.H  Sector  16  Chandigarh 
for  the  postmortem  examination  of  those  limbs, 
along  with  the  request  for  the  postmortem  of  the 
dead  bodies. 

432.  It  has  been  categorically  stated  by  PW-16, 
Dr.Sandeep  Singh  Sawhney  of  Department  of  Forensic 
Medicine,  Medical  College,  Chandigarh  that  on 
2.9.1995,  after  conducting  the  postmortem 
examination  of  the  dead  bodies  from  1.9.1995  till 
the  next  date,  he  had  examined  the  two  severed  legs 
and  the  part  of  the  skull  in  the  Mortuary  of  Sector 
16  Hospital.  This  statement  was  made  by  this 
witness  on  4.9.1996  and  was  deferred  for  6.9.1996 
and  when  a  question  was  put  to  this  witness  as  to 
what  he  had  done  with  the  two  severed  legs  and 
skull,  he  categorically  explained  that  Inspector 
Nanha    Ram    asked    him    whether    it    is    possible  that 


434 


these  two  legs  and  skull  remain  and  the  remaining 
portion  of  the  body  is  blown  off.  But  before  the 
witness  could  answer  the  question,  an  objection  was 
raised  by  learned  defence  counsel,  as  to  its 
admissibility  and  the  further  statement  of  the 
witness  was  deferred  and  when  on  the  next  date  he 
was  recalled  for  further  statement  that  question 
was  not  put  to  the  witness. 

433.  But  the  proceedings  of  the  inquest  of 
these  limbs  provides  an  answer  to  this  question  as 
a  report  has  been  made  on  the  application  that  the 
facilities  for  the  postmortem  examination  of  these 
limbs  is  not  available  in  the  General  Hospital, 
Sector  16,  Chandigarh.  As  such,  the  same  be  taken 
to  P.G.I  and  PW-16  has  explained  that  he  asked 
Inspector,  Nanha  Ram  to  put  the  two  legs  and  the 
skull  in  the  Mortuary  Chamber  and  thereafter  on 
3.9.1995,  when  the  investigations  were  taken  over 
by  the  CBI  and  these  limbs  were  inspected  by  the 
CBI  team,  it  was  decided  that  these  limbs  should  be 
kept  in  the  formalin  to  save  it  from  decomposition. 

434.  At  the  same  time,  this  fact  is  further 
proved  on  the  file  from  the  testimony  of  PW-20, 
Dr . J . L . Chaudhary,  who  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995,  he 
constituted  various  teams  to  conduct  the  postmortem 
examination  of  the  dead  bodies  received  in  the 
Hospital  and  marked  the  dead  bodies  to  the  various 
team.    He    and    PW-16    Dr.Sawhney    have  categorically 


435 


deposed     that  no 
maintained  to  enter 
but  only  postmortem 


mortuary     register     was  being 
the  receipt  of  the  dead  bodies 
register  is  being  maintained. 


435.  He  further  deposed  that  on  3.9.1995  he  had 
the  occasion  to  see  two  severed  legs  and  a  skull 
in  the  mortuary.  He  further  deposed  that  on 
3.9.1995  when  CBI  team  also  asked  about  the  nature 
of  limbs,  Dr. Sawney  (PW-16)  explained  that  on 
2.9.1995,  Inspector  Nanha  Ram  had  asked  him  whether 
it  is  possible  that  the  entire  body  of  person 
should  be  blasted  off  and  that  only  skull  and  lower 
limb  would  remain  and  he  had  stated  that  it  is 
possible  and  Dr.  Sawney  also  explained  that  he  had 
also  examined  the  two  legs  and  skull  to  say  so. 
During  the  cross  examination  of  PW-20,  the  learned 
defence  counsel  submitted  that  he  be  permitted  to 
examine  the  file  from  which  PW-20  has  refreshed  his 
memory  about  the  role  played  by  Dr.Sahini,  in 
examining  the  limbs  but  this  was  objected  by  the 
defence  counsel  and  case  was  adjourned  to 
14.10.1996  to  decide  this  point  but  on  14.10.1996 
this  point  was  not  agitated  as  learned  defence 
counsel  continued  the  cross  examination  without 
going  through  the  file  but  that  file  was  made  part 
of  the  record. 

436.  Accordingly,  a  perusal  of  the  file  shows 
that  the  facts  disclosed  by  PW-20,  were  duly 
available    in    the    file    in    black    &    white    and  this 


436 


fact  clinches  the  entire  issue  and  further  proves 
that  these  limbs  were  recovered  from  the  spot  on 
31.8.1995  itself  and  were  taken  to  General 
Hospital,  Sector  16  Chandigarh  for  postmortem 
examination  and  on  2.9.1995,  these  were  examined  by 
PW-16,  Dr.Sahini  after  completion  postmortem 
examination  of  the  identified  dead  bodies,  and  on 
3.9.1995  these  were  examined  by  PW-20, 
Dr . J . L . Chaudhary  and  the  CBI  team  and  then  the  same 
were  taken  to  PGI .  As  such  there  is  sufficient 
explanation  on  the  file  as  to  how  these  limbs  were 
taken  to  the  P.G.I. 

437.  Simply     because     of     the     fact     that  the 

recovery  of  these  limbs  have  not  been  reflected  in 
he  DDR  recorded  by  PW-240  while  reaching  Police 
Station  or  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  inquest 
report  of  the  dead  body  of  Beant  Singh,  is  not 
sufficient  to  doubt  the  recovery  these  limbs  from 
the  spot.  In  addition  to  this,  it  has  been 
categorically  stated  by  PW-6  that  after  conducting 
the  postmortem  examination  on  the  dead  body  of 
deceased  Beant  Singh, he  found  that  the  death  was 
because  of  the  extensive  deep  burns  and  mutilating 
injuries  suffered  by  the  deceased  because  of  bomb 
blast,  which  must  have  caused  by  a  explosive 
device.  Since  there  is  no  dispute  regarding  the 
identification  of  dead  bodies  of  both  the 
deceased, Beant  Singh  and  Dr. Anil  Duggal,  there  is 
no    justification   to   discuss    the    statement   of  PW-6 


437 


as  to  how  he  confirmed  the  identity  of  the  dead 
body  to  be  of  Beant  Singh. 

438.  Similarly  after  conducting  the  postmortem 
on  the  dead  bodies  of  Dr. Anil  Kumar  Duggal,he 
again  reiterated  that  he  died  because  of  the 
injuries  suffered  in  bomb  blast.  He  also  deposed 
about  the  handing  over  of  the  incriminating 
articles  recovered  from  the  dead  body  of  both  the 
deceased  persons,  which  were  later  on  examined  by 
the  CFSL  authorities  and  confirmed  to  be  having  the 
traces  of  RDX. 

439.  Not  even  this,  PW-6  further  deposed  that 
on  4.9.1995  he  received  two  legs  and  a  head  being 
kept  in  a  formalin  for  postmortem  examination  and 
on  5.9.1995  as  per  the  orders  of  Director  P.G.I., 
Ex.PW6/40-A,  he  conducted  the  postmortem 
examination  of  these  limbs  and  as  per  his  report, 
Ex.PW6/43,  after  examining  two  legs  with  feet, 
right  shoe  black  in  colour,  which  fitted  the  right 
foot  of  the  severed  leg  and  a  mutilated  head  and 
neck,  he  concluded  that  both  these  legs  belongs  to 
the  same  person  and  they  have  been  severed  just 
above  the  knees  by  a  blast  which  had  created  big 
lacerated  wound  at  the  upper  ends  of  both  the  legs 
because  of  an  explosive  device.  Although, he  also 
opined  that  from  these  limbs,  it  comes  out  that 
these  limbs  are  of  young  male  but  to  establish  the 
identity  and     the   fact  whether  the   legs   and  heads 


438 


belongs  to  a  same  person,  a  DNA  test  should  be 
done . 

440.  He  also  proved  that  Ex.PW6/44  and 
Ex.PW6/45  are  the  impression  of  the  right  and  left 
foot  of  these  two  legs  and  Ex.PW6/46  to  Ex.PW6/49 
are  the  four  coloured  photographs  of  the  legs  and 
Ex.PW6/50  to  Ex.PW6/52  are  the  three  photographs  of 
the  head,  which  were  taken  by  him  through  his 
departmental  photographer  in  his  presence  and  which 
he  had  handed  over  to  the  CBI  along  with  his  report 
along  with  all  other  documents  relating  to  this.  He 
has  also  identified  Ex.P50,  as  the  same  shoe  which 
was  brought  to  him  along  with  severed  legs  and  the 
skull  and  which  was  fitted  to  the  right  foot  of  the 
severed  leg  and  which  he  wrapped  in  a  wrapper, 
Ex.P51,  along  with  the  epidermal  cast  of  both  the 
foots . 

441.  The  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  as  per 
recommendation  of  Dr.Inderjit  Diwan,  PW-245, 
Dr.Lalji  Singh  Director  Centre  for  Cellular  and 
Molecular  Biology , Hyderabad,  who  is  a  DNA  expert, 
was  called  as  this  laboratory  was  the  first 
laboratory  in  India,  which  have  the  facility  of 
comparison  of  DNA  and  accordingly  on  5.9.1995 
Dr.Lalji  reached  Chandigarh  and  visited  P.G.I  and 
examined  the  two  legs  and  the  head  and  thereafter 
took  the  samples  of  blood  of  Harnek  Singh,  father 
of    Dilawar    Singh    and    Chamkaur    Singh    brother  of 


439 


Dilawar  Singh  because  by  that  time  the  C.B.I 
received  a  information  that  the  two  legs  and  the 
skull  are  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  who  acted  as  a 
suicide  bomber  and  this  fact  was  also  confirmed  by 
Chamkaur  Singh,  PW-99. 

442.  Accordingly,  PW-245  himself  obtained  the 
blood  samples  of  Harnek  Singh  and  Chamkaur  Singh  as 
per  the  identification  cards,  Ex.PW245/4  and 
Ex.PW245/3.  He  also  took  into  possession  some 
muscle  pieces  from  both  the  legs  and  the  head 
allegedly  of  Dilawar  Singh  and  also  took  the 
photographs  and  affixed  the  same  on  the 
identification  form,  Ex.PW245/5.  He  further 
submitted  that  on  6.9.1995  he  again  took  the  blood 
of  Surjit  Kaur,  mother  of  Dilawar  Singh,  as  per  the 
identification  form,  Ex.PW245/6,  in  the  presence  of 
Doctors  as  well  as  in  the  presence  of  officials, 
who  also  signed  those  forms. 

443.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  regarding  doubt  as  to  the  time  when  the 
samples  of  blood  of  Harnek  Singh  etc  and  the 
authenticity  of  the  report  of  PW-245,  is  concerned, 
this  plea  has  been  put  forward  on  the  assumption 
that  PW-246,  A.K.Chanda,  in  whose  presence,  the 
blood  samples  were  taken  by  the  Doctors  of  the 
P.G.I,  alleged  that  the  samples  were  taken  at  about 
4.30  PM  as  mentioned  in  the  memo,  Ex.PW99/l,  in  the 
presence    of    PW-245,     Dr.Lalji    Singh    but  Dr.Lalji 


440 


Singh  admitted  that  he  reached  at  P.G.I  only  about 
6.30  PM.  However,  no  importance  to  this  fact  can  be 
given  because  when  Dr.Lalji  was  cross  examined  on 
this  point,  he  stated  that  he  can  not  pin  point  the 
exact  time,  when  he  reached  at  Chandigarh  and  at 
P.G.I  and  it  may  be  4.00  PM  or  4.30  PM,  5.00  or 
6.00  PM . 

444.  At  the  same  time,  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh, 
when  stepped  into  the  witness  categorically 
admitted  that  although  he  identified  the  two  legs 
and  the  skull  as  the  remnants  of  the  body  of  his 
brother,  Dilawar  Singh  but  since  his  father  was 
having  some  doubt,  their  blood  samples  were  taken 
by  the  Doctors  for  comparison  and  his  signatures 
were  also  obtained  on  the  identification  form, 
Ex.PW45/3  as  well  as  of  his  parents. 

445.  Much  has  been  argued  by  learned  defence 
counsel  on  the  point  that  these  identifications 
form  have  been  left  blank  and  reguisite  information 
in  all  the  columns  has  not  been  filled  up,  which 
shows  that  these  were  created  later  on. 
However, this  plea  is  also  based  on  needless 
apprehension  and  without  any  basis  because  PW-6, 
Dr.Inderjit  Diwan,  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh,  PW-245, 
Dr.Lalji  Tondon  have  categorically  stated  that 
their  blood  samples  were  taken  by  the  Doctors  as 
per  the  memo  Ex.PW99/l,  which  is  signed  by  PW-99 
and    his    father    Harnek    Singh    and    they    have  also 


441 


signed  the  identification  forms. 

446.  No  doubt,  as  stated  by  PW-6  some  samples 
of  tissues  were  also  taken  by  PW-6  but  he  has 
categorically  stated  that  all  those  samples  were 
taken  by  him  on  the  direction  of  PW-245  and  all 
those  samples  were  sealed  in  a  parcel  and  was 
handed  over  to  PW-245  as  per  the  receipt,  Ex.PW6/88 
and  PW-245,  has  also  admitted  this  fact  and  also 
brought  the  main  cartoon,  Ex . PW245/Article-l ,  in 
which  all  the  samples  were  taken  to  Laboratory. 
Thus  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  disbelieve  the 
taking  of  blood  samples  of  Chamkaur  Singh  and  his 
parents  and  tissues  from  the  two  legs  and  the 
skull . 

447.  Now  the  question  comes  whether  the  report 
of  PW-245,  exhibited  as  PW245/7  is  a  admissible 
piece  of  evidence  or  not.  After  challenging  the 
procedure  for  taking  the  samples,  the  learned 
defence  counsel  submitted  that  the  report  of  PW-245 
is  not  conclusive  piece  of  evidence  as  first  of  all 
the  DNA  test  is  not  a  conclusive  evidence  as  to  the 
identity  of  a  person  and  at  the  same  time,  the 
report  Ex.PW245/7  itself  shows  that  some  of  the 
tissues  as  mentioned  in  the  report  as  Ex.G  to  Ex.T 
were  found  to  be  not  fit  for  DNA  finger  prints 
because  those  were  decomposed  and  if  it  was  so,  the 
other  samples  exhibited  as  Ex.D  to  Ex.F  of  the  same 
disputed  two  legs  and  the  skull,   can  not  be  held  to 


442 


be  fit  for  comparison 
in  the  same  formalin 
place  in  entire  parts. 


as  the  entire  body  was 
and    the  decomposition 


kept 
took 


448.  He  further  submitted  that  the  main  test 
recommended  for  DNA  matching,  known  as  RFLP  test, 
has  not  been  conducted  by  PW-245  and  in  addition  to 
that  all  the  five  recognized  method  for  DNA  testing 
has  not  been  carried  out  by  PW-245,  which  makes  the 
report  of  PW-245  highly  doubtful  as  the  PCR  method 
of  DNA  matching  is  not  a  full  proof  test  and  is 
only  a  technique  used  for  DNA  amplification  as 
admitted  by  PW-245,  which  further  shows  that  the 
report  of  PW-245  is  waste  piece  of  evidence  and  can 
not  be  considered  for  any  purpose  whatsoever. 

449.  At  the  same  time,  no  permission  of  the 
court  or  the  consent  of  the  concerned  persons  i.e 
PW-99  and  his  parents  was  obtained  before  taking 
the  blood  samples,  which  further  shows  that  the 
entire  process  leading  to  the  report,  Ex.PW245/7, 
is  doubtful.  Not  even  this,  one  more  lacuna  which 
makes  the  report  is  highly  doubtful,  is  that  in  the 
report,  Ex.PW245/7  itself,  it  is  mentioned  that  the 
blood  samples  and  the  tissues  of  the  deceased  were 
received  of  the  deceased  in  laboratory  on  7.9.1995 
whereas  PW-245  alleged  that  these  were  taken  to 
Laboratory  on  8.9.1995  and  there  is  no  evidence  as 
to  with  whom  the  samples  remains  from  5.9.1995  to 
8.9.1995  and  in  what  condition. 


443 


450.  However,  after  going  through  the  case  law 
relied  upon  by  learned  defence  counsel  on  this 
aspect,  it  comes  out  that  none  of  the  grounds  put 
forward  by  the  learned  defence  counsel  to  challenge 
the  report  of  PW-245  is  of  any  merit  and  has  been 
put  forward  just  to  confuse  the  matter.  Needless  to 
say  in  Gautam  Kundu's  case  (Supra)  there  was  a 
civil  litigations  leading  a  dispute  of  paternity  of 
a  child  and  when  that  dispute  was  referred  for 
determination  on  the  basis  of  blood  grouping  test, 
which  is  a  circumstantial  evidence,  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  held  that  blood  grouping  test  is  a 
useful  test  to  determine  the  guestion  of  disputed 
paternity  and  the  courts  can  rely  upon  such  reports 
as  a  circumstantial  evidence.  However,  no  person 
can  be  compelled  to  give  samples  of  blood  for 
analysis  against  her  will  and  no  adverse  inference 
can  be  drawn  against  her  for  this  refusal. 

451.  However,  how  this  authority  is  applicable 
to  the  facts  in  hand  is  a  fact  which  remains 
unexplained  on  the  file  and  thus  of  no  help  to  the 
defence.    Similarly    in    Hira    Singh   Case's  (Supra), 

there  was  a  dispute  of  paternity  and  to  decide  that 
dispute  the  DNA  test  was  prayed  for  but  that  was 
declined  and  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that  the 
consent  of  the  person  concerned  is  necessary  before 
DNA  test  is  conducted  and  when  mother  refused  to 
give    consent    on   behalf    of   minor    child,    the  court 


444 


can  not  direct  such  tests. 


452.  However,  in  the  present  case  PW-99 
has  categorically  deposed  that  he  and  his  parents 
had  given  the  blood  samples  without  any  objection 
and  he  was  not  even  cross  examined  on  this  aspect 
to  show  that  their  blood  samples  were  taken 
forcibly  and  against  their  wishes.  As  such  this 
plea  of  learned  defence  counsel  is  without  any 
basis . 

453.  As  far  as  the  procedure  for  taking  the 
blood  samples  and  the  authenticity  of 
identification  forms  Ex.PW245/3  to  Ex.PW245/6,  is 
concerned,  again  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to 
say  that  these  forms  are  incomplete  or  fabricated. 
On  the  contrary,  on  these  forms  a  certificate  is 
given  that  blood  samples  of  Chamkaur  Singh  and  his 
parents  and  tissues  and  muscle  from  two  legs  and 
skull  were  taken  along  with  the  photographs  in  the 
presence  of  PW-245  and  the  doctors  of  the  P.G.I  and 
Chamkaur  Singh  and  his  father  Harnek  Singh  also 
signed  these  forms.  It  is  also  mentioned  that  what 
is  the  purpose  of  test  and  whose  sample  is  taken 
and  for  what  purpose.  No  doubt  the  particulars  of 
the  case  FIR  etc  has  not  been  mentioned  in  these 
forms  along  with  the  person  present  but  this  is  not 
sufficient  to  dispute  the  authenticity  of  these 
forms  specially  when  from  these  forms  it  is  proved 
that   as    stated  by   the   witnesses   blood   samples  of 


445 


PW-99  and  his  father  along  with  the  muscle  and 
tissues  of  two  legs  and  the  skull  were  taken  on 
5.9.1995  and  blood  samples  of  mother  of  PW-99  was 
taken  on  6.9.1995  and  all  the  samples  of  the 
muscles,  tissues  and  blood  samples  were  sealed  by 
PW-6  by  his  own  seal  and  were  handed  over  to  PW- 
245,  who  himself  took  them  to  the  Laboratory  and 
those  samples  remain  in  his  custody  as  stated  by 
him  and  as  such  there  is  no  question  of  missing  of 
any  link  evidence  in  this  regard. 

454.  Now     the      question      comes     what      is  the 

authenticity  of  the  report  of  PW-245  and  what  is 
the  evidentiary  value  of  DNA  test  in  the  courts  to 
decide  a  dispute  of  identity.  In  this  regard,  the 
learned  defence  counsel  has  relied  upon  Sakthivel ' s 
Case  Supra  where  the  Hon'ble  Madras  High  Court, 
after  considering  the  provision  of  Section  45  of 
the  Evidence  Act  held  that  the  DNA  test  report  is 
only  a  piece  of  evidence  to  corroborate  the  oral 
evidence  and  thus  it  is  only  a  supporting  evidence 
of  an  expert.  Thus,  no  doubt,  DNA  profiling  is  not 
a  full  proof  and  conclusive  evidence  in  the  process 
of  investigation  but  it  certainly  corroborates  the 
other  evidence  and  in  this  case  also  prosecution 
has  opted  for  DNA  test  to  establish  the  identity  of 
two  legs  and  a  skull,  just  to  be  more  sure  about 
the  facts  stated  by  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh  and  his 
parents,  who  have  otherwise  identified  that  these 
two    legs    and    skull    belongs    to    deceased  Dilawar 


446 


Singh  and  the  DNA  report  was  taken  only  to  remove 
any  doubts . 


455.  As  far  as  the  procedure  to  conduct  the  DNA 

profile  and  its  evidentially  value,  is  concerned, 
as  relied  upon  by  learned  defence  counsel  in 
reference     Guide     on     Forensic     DNA     evidence  by 

Judith. A. Mekenna  and  two  other  authors,  a  procedure 
on  technical  issue  that  arise  in  considering  the 
admissibility  of  and  weight  to  be  accorded  to  DNA 
reports,  was  clarified  and  as  per  these  authors, 
the  best  established  form  of  Forensic  DNA 
identification  is  RFLP  analysis.  The  authors 
further  held  that  the  DNA  analysis  is  based  on  well 
established  principles  of  the  wide  genetic 
variability  among  humans  and  the  presumed 
unigueness  of  an  individuals  genetic  make-up  and  in 
this  technigue  the  human  chromosomes  are  isolated. 
The  authors  further  explained  that  most  DNA 
carrying  cells  in  a  human  contain  the  same 
information  encoded  in  the  approximately  3.3 
billion  base  pairs  per  set  of  chromosomes  in  each 
cell.  More  than  99%  of  the  base  pairs  in  human 
cells  are  the  same  for  all  individuals  which 
accounts  for  the  many  common  traits  that  make 
human  an  identifiable  species.  The  remaining  base 
pairs  (about  3  million)  are  particular  to  an 
individual  (identical  twins  excepted) ,  which 
accounts  for  most  of  the  wide  variation  that  makes 
each  person  unigue. 


447 


456.  Similarly,   in  DNA  testing;  an  introduction 

for   non    scientist;    an    illustrated   explanation  by 
DONALD    E.RILEY,     Ph.D.     University    of  Washington, 
(Copyright  1998) ,    the   learned  author  explained  the 
DNA  in  easy  terms  in  the  following  words :- 

"DNA  is  material  that  governs 
inheritance  of  eye  color,  hair 
color,  stature,  bone  density  and 
many  other  human  and  animal  traits. 
DNA  is  a  long  narrow  string-like 
object.  A  one  foot  long  string  or 
strand  of  DNA  is  normally  packed 
into  a  space  roughly  egual  to  a 
cube  1/millionth  of  an  inch  on  a 
side.  This  is  possible  only  because 
DNA  is  a  very  thin  string. 

Our  body's  cells  each  contain  a 
complete  sample  of  our  DNA.  One 
cell  is  roughly  equal  in  size  to 
the  cube  described  in  the  previous 
paragraph.  There  are  muscle  cells, 
brain  cells,  liver  cells,  blood 
cells,  sperm  cells  and  others. 
Basically,  every  part  of  the  body 
is  made  up  of  these  tiny  cells  and 
each  contains  a  sample  or 
complement  of  DNA  identical  to  that 


448 


of  every  other  cell  within  a  given 
person.  There  are  a  few  exceptions. 
For  example,  our  red  blood  cells 
lack  DNA.  Blood  itself  can  be  typed 
because  of  the  DNA  contained  in  our 
white  blood  cells. 

Not  only  does  the  human  body  rely 
on  DNA  but  so  do  most  living  things 
including  plants,  animals  and 
bacteria . 

A  strand  of  DNA  is  made  up  of  tiny 
building  blocks.  There  are  only 
four, different  basic  building 
blocks.  Scientists  usually  refer  to 
these  using  four  letters  for  the 
four  different  building  blocks.  The 
letters  are:  A.T.G.  And  C.  These 
four  letters  are  short  nicknames 
for  more  complicated  chemical 
names,  but  actually  the  letters 
(A.T.G  and  C) are  used  much  more 
commonly  than  the  chemical  names  so 
the  latter  will  not  be  mentioned 
here.  Another  way  of  referring  to 
the  building  blocks  or  letters  is 
to  call  them  bases. 

457.  Keeping      in      view      the      above  discussed 


449 


technical  aspects,  let  us  consider  the  report  of 
PW-245,  Ex.PW245/7.  A  perusal  of  this  report  shows 
that  PW-245  has  carried  out  DNA  profiling  by 
polymerase  chain  reaction  and  HLA  DQ  Alpha  PCR  test 

because  the  samples  of  DNA  were  very  small  in 
quantity  and  for  conducting  RFLP  analysis  larger 
amounts  of  undegraded  DNA  samples  is  required, 
which  was  not  available  in  the  present  case  and 
accordingly  out  of  the  disputed  samples  exhibited 
as  Ex.D  to  Ex.T,  in  the  report,  Ex.PW245/7,  only 
Ex.D,E  and  F  i.e  the  tissues  of  muscles  taken  from 
right  leg,  left  leg  and  the  head  of  the  skull  were 
found  to  be  fit  for  DNA  profile  whereas  the  Ex.G  to 
Ex.T  were  found  to  be  highly  degraded  because  of 
improper  storage  leading  to  decomposition.  After 
amplification  of  DNA  by  PCR  method,  the  HLA  DQ 
Alpha  typing  was  done  and  it  was  held  that  Ex.D,  E 
and  F  (right  leg  muscle,  left  leg  muscle  and  tissue 
from  the  skull)  are  positive  for  DQ  Alpha  1  &  4 
which  are  also  present  in  Ex. A,  B  i.e  the  blood  of 
mother  and  father  of  the  deceased,  which  indicates 
that  these  have  been  inherited  from  the  sources  of 
parents  and  on  this  premises,  PW-245  concludes  that 
both  the  legs  and  the  head  belongs  to  one  and  the 
same  individual,  who  is  a  biological  off  spring  of 
Smt.Surjit  Kaur  and  Harnek  Singh  and  as  such  these 
body  parts  are  of  Dilawar  Singh  son  of  these 
persons,   who  was  only  missing  son  of  these  persons. 

458.  Needless  to  say,   the  DNA  test  is  a  perfect 


450 


test  because  the  DNA  profile  of  two  individuals 
matches  only  one  in  one  lakh  persons,  which 
shows  that  it  is  a  100%  Scientific  test  having  no 
scope  of  doubts. 

459.  No  doubt  PW-245  was  cross  examined  by 
learned  defence  counsel,  who  took  great  pains  to 
trace  the  literature  as  to  the  technical  aspect  of 
the  DNA  test  and  tried  to  challenge  the  report  of 
PW-245  on  the  grounds  that  it  has  not  been  properly 
carried  out  as  the  disputed  samples  of  DNA  of  two 
legs  and  the  skull  was  highly  decomposed  and  were 
degraded  and  were  not  fit  for  analysis  and  PCR 
method  of  analysis  is  not  conclusive.  However,  from 
the  reasons  given  by  PW-245  in  his  report, 
Ex.PW245/7  along  with  all  the  annexures  and  the 
cross  examination  faced  by  this  witness, it  clearly 
spells  out  that  this  witness  was  having  no  motive 
to  give  a  false  report. 

460.  He  has  categorically  stated  that  he 
compared  only  those  profiles  which  were  fit  for 
analysis,  since  a  DNA  in  a  particular  tissue  can 
survive,  whereas  it  can  die  in  other  tissue  because 
of  their  unique  chromosomes.  As  far  as  the 
technical  objections  regarding  depositing  of 
samples  and  mentioning  of  date  of  receipt  of  the 
samples  as  7.9.1995  is  concerned  again  this  is 
without  any  basis  because  in  the  report  itself  it 
is    mentioned    at    so    many   places    that    the  samples 


451 


were  collected  by  PW-245  in  Hypernised  bottles  and 
were  received  in  the  laboratory  on  8.9.1995  and  the 
date  7.9.1995  on  the  heading  may  have  been  because 
of  typographical  mistake. 

461.  At  the  same  time,  PW-245  has  categorically 
stated  that  all  the  samples  remained  with  him  from 
the  time  those  were  taken  till  it  reached  the 
Laboratory  and  he  has  also  explained  that  he  has 
done  the  reguisite  tests  from  the  samples  taken  by 
him  in  the  hypernised  bottles  and  the  samples  taken 
by  PW-6  were  also  used  for  conducting  reguisite 
test.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence  counsel 
that  PW-245  has  failed  to  bring  his  bench  notes  and 
as  such  he  could  not  cross  examine  him  on  this 
aspect,  is  concerned,  it  makes  no  difference 
because  testimony  of  PW-245  is  an  expert  witness 
and  it  can  be  evaluated  in  the  light  of  the  oral 
evidence  led  by  the  prosecution,  as  to  the  identity 
of  the  two  legs  and  the  skull.  Therefore,  the 
opinion  of  the  PW-245  can  be  pressed  into  service 
to  corroborate  the  stand  taken  by  PW-99. 

462.  Now  let  us  discuss  the  evidence  of  PW-99, 
who  has  given  the  primary  evidence  as  to  the 
identity  of  two  legs  and  the  skull.  Accordingly, 
this  witness,  who  is  real  brother  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh,  when  stepped  into  the  witness  box 
categorically  deposed  that  on  30.8.1995,  his 
brother,    Dilawar    Singh    along   with    accused  Balwant 


452 


Singh  stayed  in  his  house  at  Chandigarh  and  on  the 
next  morning  when  he  left  the  house  in  Car  No.  DBA- 
9598,  Ex.P76,  Dilawar  Singh  told  him  that  he  should 
flee  away  from  Chandigarh  along  with  family 
otherwise  Police  will  kill  them  as  Dilawar  Singh 
and  Balwant  Singh  are  going  to  perpetuate  a  big 
offence . 

463.  He  further  deposed  that  on  31.8.1995  at 
7.00  p.m,  he  heard  television  news  and  came  to 
know  that  Beant  Singh,  Chief  Minister  has  been 
assassinated  in  Bomb  blast  and  at  that  moment  he 
realised  that  his  brother  Dilawar  Singh  is  involved 
in  this  assassination  and  he  left  his  Chandigarh 
house  for  his  native  place  along  with  his  family. 
On  2.9.1995,  he  again  read  the  entire  matter  in  the 
news  paper  along  with  the  photographs  of  the  car 
and  was  convinced  that  his  brother  Dilawar  Singh 
and  Balwant  Singh  are  involved  in  this  blast. 

464.  He  further  deposed  that  on  5.9.1995,  this 
witness  contacted  the  CBI  and  then  he  along  with 
his  father  went  to  P.G.I  and  saw  two  legs  and  the 
skull  and  his  father  identified  the  same  to  be  of 
Dilawar  Singh,  as  per  the  memo  of  identification, 
Ex. PW99/1 . 

465.  He  further  deposed  that  he  has  also  seen 
the  one  black  lace  shoe,  Ex.P50  and  it  was  the  same 
shoe   which   his   brother   was   wearing   on   the  morning 


453 


of  31.8.1995,   when  he  left  his  house. 

466.  He  further  deposed  that  after  that  their 
blood  samples  were  taken  and  they  were  sure  that 
his  brother  has  killed  himself  to  kill  Beant  Singh 
and  on  5.11.1995,  his  father  moved  an  application, 
Ex.PW99/5  to  take  the  delivery  of  the  remnants  of 
Dilawar  Singh  and  thereafter  they  received  the  same 
from  the  Hospital  as  per  the  receipt,  Ex.PW99/6  and 
cremated  the  same. 

467.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  regarding  non  examination  of  parents  of 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  is  concerned,  it  makes  no 
difference  because  it  was  PW-99,  who  knows  all  the 
facts  and  he  has  also  proved  the  stand  of  his 
parents  on  guestion  identification  of  body  parts  of 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh. 

468.  Thus,  the  oral  testimony  of  PW-99  coupled 
with  the  facts  and  circumstances  proved  in  evidence 
and  admission  made  by  Balwant  Singh  corroborated  by 
the  report  of  DNA  expert  PW-245,  Ex.PW245/7,  it  is 
proved  beyond  doubt  on  file  that  two  legs  and  skull 
recovered  from  the  spot  were  body  parts  of  the 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  who  acted  as  a  suicide 
bomber  and  caused  this  blast  and  executed  the  plan 
to  kill  Beant  Singh,  as  per  the  conspiracy  hatched 
between  Balwant  Singh  and  deceased  Dilawar  Singh 
and  others . 


454 


POINT  FOR  DETERMINATION  NO:  2. 


469.  In  view  of  above  discussion  and  conclusion 
now  let  us  come  to  the  second  point  for 
determination,  which  is  the  most  material  point,  as 
far  as  the  accused  contesting  this  trial  are 
concerned, that : - 

Whether  this  bomb  blast  was  caused  by  the 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  in  execution  of  a 
conspiracy  hatched  by  accused  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  (proclaimed 
offenders)  with  the  other  accused 
persons,  who  were  absconding  and  who  are 
facing  trial  in  this  case  and  all  of  them 
were  the  part  and  parcel  of  that 
conspiracy  and  committed  different  acts 
of  omissions  and  commissions  in  pursuance 
of  their  conspiracy  leading  to  the 
killing  of  deceased  Beant  Singh  and 
others? 

470.  To  decide  this  controversy,  we  will  have 
to  keep  in  mind,  that  nature  of  the  offence  and  its 
magnitude,  itself  shows  that  this  operation  was  not 
possible  only  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh,  as  alleged  by  Balwant  Singh,  alone 
as  it  involves  multifarious  preparations  and 
collection     of     huge     materials     to     achieve  the 


455 


ultimate  goal  of  murder  of  Late  Beant  Singh.  On  the 
other  hand,  this  operation  was  possible  only  with 
the  help  of  many  more  persons  that  too  after 
hatching  a  well  planned  conspiracy  involving  men, 
materials,  money,  motivation  and  movements,  as  put 
forward  by  the  prosecution.  Thus  let  us  scan  the 
evidence  of  the  prosecution  to  decide  this  core 
question . 

471.  This  court  is  not  oblivious  of  the  fact 
that  keeping  in  view  the  nature  of  offence  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  has  been  committed, 
there  cannot  be  any  direct  eye  witness,  who  can  say 
how  this  blast  took  place,  by  whom  and  in  what 
manner,  because  it  is  not  only  difficult  but  almost 
impossible  to  have  direct  evidence  of  conspiracy 
and  entire  case  is  to  be  judged  from  the 
circumstantial  evidence  brought  on  the  file. 

472.  As  far  as  the  question  of  finding  guilt 
solely  on  the  basis  of  circumstantial  evidence,  is 
concerned,  as  stated  earlier, to  know  the  true 
genesis  and  find  the  guilt  on  the  basis  of  the 
circumstantial  evidence,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  has 
laid  down  the  guidelines  from  time  to  time  and  the 
process  started  with  Hanumant  Govind  Nargundkar  Vs. 
State  of  M.P,AIR  1952  Supreme  Court  343  wherein  the 
law  was  laid  down  in  the  following  terms :- 

"It   is  well   to  remember  that   in  cases 


456 


where  the  evidence  is  of  a 
circumstantial  nature,  the 

circumstance  from  which  the 

conclusion  of  guilt  is  to  be  drawn 
should  be  in  the  first  instance  be 
fully  established,  and  all  the  facts 
so  established  should  be  consistent 
only  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt 
of  the  accused.  Again  the 
circumstances  should  be  of  a 
conclusive  nature  and  tendency  and 
they  should  be  such  as  to  exclude 
every  hypothesis  but  the  one  proposed 
to  be  proved.  In  other  words,  there 
must  be  a  chain  of  evidence  so  far 
complete  as  not  to  leave  any 
reasonable  ground  for  a  conclusion 
consistent  with  the  innocence  of  the 
accused  and  it  must  be  such  as  to 
show  that  within  all  human 
probability  the  act  must  have  been 
done  by  the  accused. 

473.  Yet  again  in     Sharad  Birdhichand  Sarda  Vs. 

State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1984,  Supreme  Court, 
1622,  while  dealing  with  circumstantial  evidence, it 
has  been  held  that  the  following  conditions  must  be 
fulfilled  before  a  case  based  on  circumstantial 
evidence  is  said  to  be  fully  proved  including  the 
guilt  of  the  accused  persons :- 

(1)  the    circumstances    from    which  the 
conclusion    of   guilt    is    to   be  drawn 
should      be    fully    established.  The 
circumstances  concerned   must  or 
should  and  not  may  be  established. 

(2)  The    facts    so    established    should  be 
consistent   only  with   the  hypothesis 


457 


of      the   guilt   of   the   accused,  that 
is  to  say,         they     should     not  be 
explainable  on  any    other  hypothesis 
except  that  the  accused  is  guilty. 

(3)  The    circumstances    should    be    of  a 
conclusive  nature  and  tendency. 

(4)  They  should  exclude  every  possible 
hypothesis     except     the     one     to  be 
proved;  and 

(5)  there  must  be  a  chain  of  evidence  so 
complete     as     not     to     leave  any 
reasonable        ground         for  the 
conclusion  consistent  with  the 
innocence    of    the    accused    and  must 
the    act  must  have  been   done   by  the 
accused . 

(6)  Suspicion,    however   grave,    cannot  be 
substituted     for     a    proof     and  the 
courts    shall    take   utmost  precaution 
in  finding  an  accused  guilty  only  on 
the  basis  of  circumstantial  evidence. 

It  was  further  observed  that: 


"We  can  fully  understand  that  though 
the  case  superficially  viewed  bears  an 
ugly  look  so  as  to  prima  facie  shock 
the  conscience  of  any  Court  yet 
suspicion,  however  great  it  may  be, 
can  not  take  the  place  of  legal  proof. 
A  moral  conviction  however  strong  or 
genuine  can  not  amount  to  a  legal 
conviction  supportable  in  law. 
It  must  be  recalled  that  the  well 
established  rule  of  criminal  justice 
is  that  "fouler  the  crime  higher  the 
proof". In  the  instant  case,  the  life 
and  liberty  of  a  subject  was  at  stake. 
As  the  accused  was  given  a  capital 
sentence, a   very    careful,    cautious  and 


458 


meticulous    approach    was    necessary  to 
be  made . " 

The  murder  might  have  been  committed 
in  a  very  cruel  and  revolting  manner 
but  that  may  itself  be  a  reason  for 
scrutinizing  the  evidence  a  bit  more 
closely . 

474.  Similarly     in,     Bhagat    Ram    Vs     State  of 

Punjab, AIR   1954,    Supreme   Court,    page    621,    it  was 

laid  down  that  where  the  case  depends  upon  the 
conclusion  drawn  from  circumstances  the  cumulative 
effect  of  the  circumstances  must  be  such  as  to 
negative  the  innocence  of  the  accused  and  bring 
home  the  offences  beyond     any  reasonable  doubt. 

4  75.  Similarly  in,  C.Chenga  Reddy  Vs.    State  of 

A.P,  1996(10)  SCC,  page  193  wherein  it  has  been 
observed  that : - 

"In  case  based  on  circumstantial 
evidence,   the  settled  law  is   that  the 

circumstances  from  which  the  conclusion 
of  guilt  is  drawn  should  be  fully  proved 
and  such  circumstances  must  be  conclusive 
in  nature.  Moreover,  all  the 

circumstances  should  be  complete  and 
there  should  be  no  gap  left  in  the  chain 
of  evidence.  Further,  the  proved 
circumstances  must  be  consistent  only 
with  the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the 
accused  and  totally  inconsistent  with  his 
innocence . " 

47  6.  In  Padala  Veera  Reddy  Vs.   State  of  A.P, AIR 

1990,   Supreme  Court,   79  it  was  laid  down  that  when 


459 


a  case 
evidence 


rests  upon 
must  satisfy 


circumstantial  evidence, such 
the  following  tests: 


1 .  the  circumstances  from  which  an  inference 
of  guilt  is  sought  to  be  drawn  must  be 
cogently  and  firmly  established; 

2 .  those  circumstances  should  be  of  a 
definite  tendency  unerringly  pointing 
towards  guilty  of  the  accused. 

3 .  The  circumstances  ,  taken  cumulatively, 
should  from  a  chain  so  complete  that 
there  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion 
that  within  all  human  probability  the 
crime  was  committed  by  the  accused  and 
none  else; and 

4 .  the  circumstantial  evidence  in  order  to 
sustain  conviction  must  he  complete  and 
incapable  of  explanation  of  any  other 
hypothesis  than  that  of  guilt  of  the 
accused  and  such  evidence  should  not  only 
be  consistent  with  the  guilt  of  the 
accused  but  should  be  inconsistent  with 
his  innocence." 

477.  Sir    Alfred    Wills    in    his    admirable  book 

'Wills"  Circumstantial  Evidence    (Chapter  VI)  lays 
down   the    following   rules    specially   to   be  observed 
in  the  case  of  circumstantial  evidence: 


1.  the  facts  alleged  as  the  basis  of 
any  legal  inference  must  be  clearly 
proved  and  beyond  reasonable  doubt 
connected  with  the  factum  probandum; 

2.  the  burden  of  proof  is  always  on 
the  party  who  asserts  the  existence 
of  any  fact,  which  infers  legal 
accountability; 

3.  in  all  cases,  whether  of  direct 
or    circumstantial    evidence    the  best 


460 


evidence  must  be  adduced  which  the 
nature  of  the  case  admits; 


4.  in  order  to  justify  the  inference 
of  guilt,  the  in  culpatory  facts 
must  be     incompatible  with  the 

innocence  of  the  accused  and 
incapable  of  explanation,  upon  any 
other  reasonable  hypothesis  than 
that  of  his  guilt  and  if  there  be 
any  reasonable  doubt  of  the  guilt 
of  the  accused,  he  is  entitled  as  of 
right  to  be  acquitted. 

478.  In     state     of    Goa    Vs. San jay    and  others 

2007  (2)  RCR (criminal)  page  458,  again  all  the  above 
principles  were  reiterated. 


479.  As   stated  earlier,    the  entire   case  of  the 

prosecution  is  that  deceased  Beant  Singh  along  with 
16  other  persons  was  killed  by  way  of  human  bomb 
and  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  in  consequence  of  a  well 
laid  conspiracy  by  all  the  accused  persons  facing 
trial  in  this  case  along  with  the  other  persons, 
who  have  been  declared  proclaimed  offenders  or  who 
are  absconding.  As  such  first  question  comes  what 
is  the  legal  position  as  to  the  factum  of 
conspiracy  and  the  evidence  required  to  prove  the 
same . 


480.  Section    120-A    of    the    Indian    Penal  Code 

defines   'Criminal  Conspiracy'   as  follows: 


"When  two  or  more  persons  agree  to  do  , 
or  cause  to  be  done 
(a)   an  illegal  act 


461 


(b)   an  act  which  is  not  illegal  by 

illegal  means,    such  an  agreement 
is  designated  a  criminal 
conspiracy . 

Provided  that  no  agreement 
except  an  agreement  to  commit  an 
offence  shall  amount  to  a 
criminal  conspiracy  unless  some 
act  besides  the  agreement  is  done 
by  one  or  more  parties  to  such 
agreement  in  pursuance  thereof. 


Explanation-  it  is  immaterial  whether 
the  illegal  act  is  the  ultimate 
object  of  such  agreement,  or  is 
merely  incidental  to  that  object. 

481.  Section     120-B     which     prescribes     in  sub 

Section  (1)  the  punishment  for  criminal  conspiracy 
provides : 


"Whoever  is  a  party  to  a  criminal 
conspiracy  to  commit  an  offence 
punishable  with  death,  (imprisonment  for 
life)  or  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a 
term  of  two  year  or  up  wards,  shall, 
where  no  express  provision  is  made  in 
the  Court  for  the  punishment  of  such  a 
conspiracy,  be  punished  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  he  had  abetted  such 
offence . " 


482.  Like    most    crimes,    conspiracy    requires  an 

act  (actus  reus)  and  accompanying  mental  state 
(mensrea) .  The  agreement  constitutes  that  act,  and 
the  intention  to  achieve  the  unlawful  objective  of 
that  agreement  constitutes  the  required  mental 
state.     In     the     face     of    modern     organized  crime, 


462 


complex  business  arrangements  in  restraint  of 
trade,  and  subversive  political  activity, 
conspiracy  law  has  witnessed  expansion  in  many 
forms.  Conspiracy  criminalises  in  agreement  to 
commit  a  crime.  All  conspirators  are  liable  for 
crimes  committed  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy 
by  any  member  of  the  group,  regardless  of  whether 
liability  would  be  established  by  the  law  of 
complicity . 


483.  To    put    it    differently,    the    law  punishes 

conduct  that  threatens  to  produce  the  harm,  as  well 
as  conduct  that  has  actually  produced  it.  Contrary 
to  the  usual  rule  that  an  attempt  to  commit  a  crime 
merges  with  the  complete  offence,  conspirators  may 
be  tried  and  punished  for  both  the  conspiracy  and 
the  completed  crime.  The  rationale  of  conspiracy  is 
that  the  required  objective  manifestation  of 
disposition  to  criminality  is  provided  by  the  act 
of  agreement.  Conspiracy  is  a  clean  destine 
activity.  Persons  generally  do  not  form  illegal 
covenants  openly.  In  the  interests  of  security,  a 
person  may  carry  out  his  part  of  a  conspiracy 
without  even  being  informed  of  the  identity  of  this 
kind  can  rarely  be  shown  by  direct  proof,  it  must 
be  inferred  from  circumstantial  evidence  of  co- 
operation between  the  accused.  What  people  do  is, 
of  course,  evidence  of  what  conspiracy,  the 
prosecution  must  show  that  he  agreed  with  others 
that    together    they    would    accomplish    the  unlawful 


463 


object  of  the  conspiracy. 


484.  Another     major     problem    which     arises  in 

connection  with  the  requirement  of  an  agreement  is 
that  of  determining  the  scope  of  a  conspiracy-  who 
are  the  parties  and  what  are  their  objectives.  The 
determination  is  critical,  since  it  defines  the 
potential  liability  of  each  accused.  The  law  has 
developed  approach  the  question  of  scope,  Once  such 
model  is  that  of  a  chain,  where  each  party  in 
accomplishing  the  criminal  objectives  of  the 
conspiracy.  No  matter  how  diverse  the  goals  one 
objective;  to  promote  the  furtherance  of  the 
enterprise.  So  far  as  the  mental  state  is 
conspiracy  are  the  intent  to  agree  and  the  intent 
to  promote  the  unlawful  objective  of  the 
conspiracy.  It  is  the  intention  to  promote  a  crime 
that  lends  conspiracy  its  criminal  cast. 


485.  Conspiracy     is     not     only     a  substantive 

crime.  It  also  serves  as  a  basis  for  holding  one 
person  liable  for  the  crimes  of  others  in  cases 
where  application  of  the  usual  doctrines  of 
complicity  would  render  that  person  liable.  Thus, 
one  who  enters  into  conspiratorial  foreseeable 
crime  committed  by  every  other  member  of  the 
conspiracy  in  furtherance  of  its  objectives, 
whether  or  not  he  knew  of  the  crimes  or  aided  in 
their  commission.  The  ration  able  is  that  criminal 
acts    done    in    furtherance    of    a    conspiracy    may  be 


464 


sufficiently  dependent  upon  the  encouragement  and 
support  of  the  group  as  a  whole  to  warrant  treating 
each  member  of  a  casual  agent  to  each  act.  Under 
this  view,  which  of  the  conspirators  committed  the 
substantive  offence  would  be  less  significant  in 
determining  the  defendant's  liability  than  the  fact 
that  the  crime  was  performed  as  a  part  of  a  larger 
division  of  labour  to  which  the  accused  had  also 
contributed  his  efforts. 


486.  Regarding       admissibility       of  evidence, 

loosened  standards  prevail  in  a  conspiracy  trial. 
Contrary  to  the  usual  rule,  in  conspiracy 
prosecutions , any  declaration  by  one  conspirator, 
made  in  furtherance  of  a  conspiracy  and  during  its 
pendency,  is  admissible  against  each  co- 
conspirator. Despite  the  unreliability  of  hearsay 
evidence,  it  is  admissible  in  conspiracy 
prosecutions.  Explaining  this  rule,  Judge  Hand, 
in (Van  Riper  Vs.  United  States  13  F.2d  961,  967  (2d 
Cir,  1926)  said: 


"Such  declarations  are  admitted  upon  no 
doctrine  of  the  law  of  evidence,  but  of 
the  substantive  law  of  crime.  When  men 
enter  into  an  agreement  for  an  unlawful 
end,  they  become  ad  hoc  agents  for  one 
another,  and  have  made  'a  partnership  in 
crime'.  What  one  does  pursuant  to  their 
common  purpose,  all  do,  and  as 
declarations  may  be  such  acts,  they  are 
competent  against  all." 


465 


487.  Thus  conspirators  are  liable  on  an  agency 
theory  for  statements  of  co-conspirators,  just  as 
they  are  for  the  overt  acts  and  crimes  committed  by 
their  conf errers . 

488.  Interpreting    the    provisions     in  Sections 
120A  and  120B  of  the  IPC,    the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in 
the   case   of    Yash  Pal  Mittal   Vs.    State   of  Punjab, 
(1977)     4    SCC    540,     in    para    9    at    pages    543  and 
544, made  the  following  observations: 

"  The  offence  of  criminal  conspiracy  under 
Section  120-A  is  a  distinct  offence 
introduced  for  the  first  time  in  1913 
in  Chapter  V-A  of  the  Penal  Code.  The 

very  agreement,  concert  or  league  is  the 
ingredient  of  the  offence.  It  is  not 
necessary  that     all      the  conspirators 

must  know  each  and  every  detail  of  the 
conspiracy  as  long  as  they  are  co- 
conspirators in  the  main  object  of  the 
conspiracy.  There  may  be  so  many  devices 
and  technigues  adopted  to  achieve  the 
common  goal  of  the  conspiracy  and  there 
may  be  division  of  performances    in  the 

chain  of  actions  with  one  object  to 
achieve  the  real  end  of  which  every 
collaborator  must  be  aware  and  in  which 
each  one  of  them  must  be  interested.  There 
must  be  unity  of  object  or  purpose  but 
there  may  be  plurality  of  means  sometimes 
even  unknown  to  one  another,  amongst  the 
conspirators.  In  achieving  the  goal 
several  offences  may  be  committed  by  some 
of  the  conspirators  even  unknown  to  the 
others.  The  only  relevant  factor  is  that 
all  means  adopted  and  illegal  acts  done 
must  be  and  purported  to  be  in  furtherance 
of     the     object     of     the     conspiracy  even 


466 


though  there  may  be  sometimes  misfire  or 
overshooting  by  some  of  the  conspirators. 
Even  if  some  steps  are  resorted  to  by  one 
or  two  of  the  conspirators  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  others  it  will  not 
affect  the  capability  of  those  others  when 
they  are  associated  with  the  object  of  the 
conspiracy . " 

489.  The  significance  of  criminal  conspiracy 
under  Section  120-A  is  brought  out  pithily  by  the 
Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in,  Major  E.G  Barsay  Vs. 
State  of  Bombay,    (1962)  195: 

"The  gist  of  the  offence  is  an  agreement 
to  break  the  law.  The  parties  to  such  an 
agreement  will    be    guilty    of  criminal 

conspiracy,   though  the  illegal  act 

agreed  to  be  done  has  not  been  done.  So 
too,  it  is  not  an  ingredient  of  the 
offence  that  all  the  parties  should  agree 
to  do  a  single  illegal  act.  It  may 
comprise  the  commission  of  a  number  of 
acts.  Under  Section  43  of  the  Indian  Penal 
Code,  an  act  would  be  illegal  if  it  is  an 
offence  or  it  it  is  prohibited  by  law. 
Under  the  first   charge   the   accused  are 

charged  with  having  conspired  to  do 
three  categories  of  illegal  acts,  and 
the  mere  fact  that  all  of  them  could  not 
be  convicted  separately  in  respect  of 
each  of  the  offences  has  no  relevancy  in 
considering  the  question  whether  the 
offence  of  conspiracy  has  been  committed. 
They  are  all  guilty  of  the  offence  of 
conspiracy  to  do  illegal  acts,  though  for 
individual  offences  all  of  them  may  not  be 
liable." 

490.  Similarly  the  Hon'ble  Bombay  High  Court  in 
Dr.Dattatrya  Narayan  Samant  and  others  Versus  State 


467 


of  Maharahtra  reported  in  1982  Crl.L.J.  1025 


"The  most  important  ingredient  of  the 
offence  of  conspiracy  is  the  agreement 
between  two  or  more  persons  to  do  an 
illegal  act.  The  illegal  act  may  or 
may  not  be  done  in  pursuance  of  the 
agreement , but  the  very  agreement  is  an 
offence  punishable  under  S.120-B  of  the 
Penal  Code.  Entering  into  an  agreement  by 
two  or  more  persons  to  do  an  illegal  act 
or  legal  act  by  illegal  means  and  not 
merely  an  intention  to  do  such  acts 
constitutes  the  very  quintessence  of  the 
offence  of  conspiracy.  So  long  as  such  a 
design  rests  in  intention  only,  it  is 
not  indictable.  The  prosecution  must 
further  show  that  the  agreement  was 
entered  into  and  that  there  was  a  meeting 
of  minds  between  two  or  more  persons  or 
as  is  described  etymologically , 
conspiracy  means  breathing  together  and 
two  people  cannot  breathe  together  unless 
they  put  their  heads  together.  The  gist 
of  offence  of  conspiracy  lies  not  in 
doing  the  act  or  effecting  the  purpose 
for  which  the  conspiracy     is  formed, 

nor  in  attempting  to  do  any  of  the  act, 
nor  in  instigating  others  to  do  them,  but 
in  the  forming  of  the  scheme  of  agreement 
between  the  parties.  It  is  well  settled 
that  an  agreement  can  be  proved  either 
by  direct  evidence  or  by  circumstantial 
evidence  or  by  both.  What  the  prosecution 
must  prove  by  the  positive  evidence  is 
that  there  was  a  positive  agreement  in 
the  minds  of    two    or    more    persons  or 

there  was  a  meeting  of  minds  to  do  an 

unlawful  act  or  to  do  a  lawful  act  by 
unlawful  design.  For  example, if  two 
burglars  should  decide  independently  to 
burgle  the  same  house  on  the  same 
night,  their  independent  decision  would 
not  constitute  a  conspiracy.   A  conspiracy 


468 


is  not  merely  a  concurrence  of    wills, but 
a    concurrence    resulting    from  agreement 
between  the  two." 

491.  Similarly,    the  question   comes   what   is  the 

amplitude  of  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act  to 
prove  a  conspiracy  and  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in 
State  of  Tamilnadu  Versus  S.  Nalini  and  others, 
1999  Crl.Law  Journal,  page  3124,  known  as  Rajiv 
Gandhi  murder  case,  while  taking  into  consideration 
the  entire  case  law  on  the  point,  laid  down  some  of 
the  broad  principles  governing  the  law  of 
conspiracy  in  the  following  words : - 

(1)  Under  Section  120  A  IPC  offence  of 
criminal  conspiracy  is  committed  when  two 
or  more  persons  agree  to  do  or  cause  to  be 
done  an  illegal  act  or  legal  act  by 
illegal  means.  When  it  is  a  legal  act  by 
illegal  means  over  act  is  necessary. 
Offences  of  criminal.  conspiracy  is  an 
exception  to  the  general  law  It  is 
intention  to  commit  crime  and  joining 
hands  with  persons  having  the  same 
intention.  Not  only  the  intention  but 
there  has  to  be  agreement  to  carry  out  the 
object  of  the  intention,  which  is  an 
offence.  The  question  for  consideration  in 
case  is  did  all  the  accused  have  the 
intention  and  did  they  agree  that  the 
crime   be      omitted   it   would   not   be  enough 


469 


for  the  office  of  conspiracy  when  some  of 
the  accused  merely  entertained  a  wish, 
howsoever  horrendous  it  may  be,  that 
offence  be  committed. 


(2)  Acts  subsequent  to  the  achieving  of 
the  object  of  conspiracy  may  tend  to  prove 
that  a  particular  accused  was  party  to  the 
conspiracy.  Once  the  object  of  conspiracy 
has  been  achieved,  any  subsequent  act, 
which  may  be  unlawful,  would  not  make  the 
accused  a  part  of  the  conspiracy  like 
giving  shelter  to  an  absconder. 


(3)  Conspiracy  is  hatched  in  private  or 
in  secrecy.  It  is  nearly  impossible  to 
establish  a  conspiracy  by  direct  evidence. 
Usually,  both     the     existence     of  the 

conspiracy  and  its  objects  have  to  be 
inferred  from  the  circumstances  and  the 
act  and  conduct  of  the  accused. 


(4)  Conspirators  may  for  example,  be 
enrolled  in  a  chain-  A  enrolling  B,  B 
enrolling  C,  and  so  on;  and  all  will  be 
members  of  a  single  conspiracy  if  they  so 
intend  and  agree,  even  though  each  member 
knows  only  the  person,  who  enrolled  him 
and  the  person  whom  he  enrolls.  There  may 
be    a    kind    of    umbrella-spoke  enrollment, 


470 


where  a  single  person  at  the  center  does 
the  enrolling  and  all  the  other  members 
are  unknown  to  each  other,  though-  they 
know  that  there  are  to  be  other  members . 
These  are  theories  and  in  practice  it  may 
be  difficult  to  tell  which  conspiracy  in  a 
particular  case  falls  into  which  category. 
It  may  however  even  overlap.  But  then 
there  has  to  be  present  mutual  interest. 
Persons  maybe  members  of  single  conspiracy 
even  though  each  is  ignorant  of  the 
identity  of  many  others  who  may  have 
diverse  roles  to  play.  It  is  not  a  part  of 
the  crime  of  conspiracy  that  all  the 
conspirators  need  to  agree  to  play  the 
same  or  an  active  role. 


(5)  When  two  or  more  persons  agree  to 
commit  a  crime  of  conspiracy,  then 
regardless  of  making  or  considering  any 
plans  for  its  commission,  and  despite  the 
fact  that  no  step  is  taken  by  any  such 
person  to  carry  out  their  common  purpose, 
a  crime  is  committed  by  each  and  every  one 
who  joins  in  the  agreement.  There  has  thus 
to  be  two  conspirators  and  there  may  be 
more  than  that.  To  prove  the  charge  of 
conspiracy  it  is  not  necessary  that 
intended  crime  was  committed  or  not.  If 
committed   it   may   further   help  prosecution 


471 


to  prove  the  charge  of  conspiracy. 


(6)  It  is  not  necessary  that  all 
conspirators  should  agree  to  the  common 
purpose  at  the  same  time.  They  may  join 
with  other  conspirators  at  any  time  before 
the  consummations  of  the  intended 
objective,  and  all  are  equally 
responsible.  What  part  each  conspirator  is 
to  play  may  not  be  known  to  everyone  or 
the  fact  as  to  when  a  conspirator  joined 
the  conspiracy  and  when  he  left. 


(7)  A  charge  of  conspiracy  may  prejudice 
the  accused  because  it  forces  them  into  a 
joint  trial  and  the  court  may  consider  the 
entire  mass  of  evidence  against  every 
accused.  Prosecution  has  to  produce 
evidence  not  only  to  show  that  each  of  the 
accused  has  knowledge  of  the  object  of 
conspiracy  but  also  of  the  agreement.  In 
the  charge  of  conspiracy  the  court  has  to 
guard  itself  against  the  danger  of 
unfairness  to  the  accused.  Introduction  of 
evidence  against  some  may  result  in  the 
conviction  of  all,  which  is  to  be  avoided. 
By  means  of  evidence  in  conspiracy,  which 
is  otherwise  inadmissible  in  the  trial  of 
any  other  substantive  offence,  prosecution 
tries  to  implicate  the  accused  not  only  in 


472 


the  conspiracy  itself  but  also  in  the 
substantive  crime  of  the  alleged 
conspirators.  There  is  always  difficulty 
interacting  the  precise  contribution  of 
each  member  of  the  conspiracy  but  then 
there  has  to  be  cogent  and  convincing 
evidence  against  each  one  of  the  accused 
charged  with  the  offence  of  conspiracy.  As 
observed  by  Judge  learned  Hand  "this 
distinction  is  important  today  when  many 
prosecutors  seek  to  sweep  within  the 
dragnet  of  conspiracy  all  those  who  have 
been  associated  in  any  degree  whatever 
with  the  main  offenders. 

(8)  As  stated  above  it  is  the  unlawful 
agreement  and  not  its  accomplishment, 
which  is  the  gist  or  essence  of  the  crime 
of  conspiracy.  Offence  of  criminal 
conspiracy  is  complete  even  though  there 
is  no  agreement  as  to  the  means  by  which 
the  purpose  is  to  be  accomplished.  It  is 
the  unlawful  agreement  which  is  the 
gravamen  of  crime  of  conspiracy.  The 
unlawful  agreement  which  amounts  to  a 
conspiracy  need  not  be  formal  or  express, 
but  may  be  inherent  in  and  inferred  from 
the  circumstances,  especially 

declarations , acts  and  conduct  of  the 
conspirators .     The    agreement    need    not  be 


473 


entered  into  by  all  the  parties  to  it  at 
the  same  time  but  may  be  reached  by 
successive  actions  evidencing  their 
joining  of  the  conspiracy. 

(9)  It  has  been  said  that  a  criminal 
conspiracy  is  a  partnership  in  crime,  and 
that  there  is  in  each  conspiracy  a  joint 
or  mutual  agency  for  the  prosecution  of  a 
common  plan.  Thus,  if  two  or  more  persons 
enter  into  a  conspiracy,  any  act  done  by 
any  of  them  pursuant  to  the  agreement  is, 
in  contemplation  of  law,  the  act  of  each 
of  them  and  they  are  jointly  responsible 
therefor.  This  means  that  everything  said, 
written  or  done  by  any  of  the  conspirators 
in  execution  or  furtherance  of  the  common 
purpose  is  deemed  to  have  been  said,  done 
or  written  by  each  of  them.  And  this  joint 
responsibility  extends  not  only  to  what  is 
done  by  any  of  the  conspirators  pursuant 
to  the  original  agreement  but  also  to 
collateral  acts  incidental  to  and  growing 
out  of  the  original  purpose.  A  conspirator 
is  not  responsible,  however,  for  acts  done 
by  co-conspirator  after  termination  of 
the  conspiracy.  The  joinder  of  a 
conspiracy  by  a  new  member  does  not  create 
a  new  conspiracy  not  does  it  change  the 
status        of        the        other  conspirators 


474 


individually  or  in  groups  perform 
different  tasks  to  a  common  end  does  not 
split  up  a  conspiracy  into  several 
different  conspiracies. 

(10)  A  man  may  join  a  conspiracy  by  word 
or         by         deed.  However,  criminal 

responsibility  for  a  conspiracy  requires 
more  than  a  merely  passive  attitude 
towards  an  existing  conspiracy.  One  who 
commits  an  overt  act  with  knowledge  of  the 
conspiracy  is  guilty.  And  one  who  tacitly 
consents  to  the  objects  of  a  conspiracy 
and  goes  along  with  other  conspirators, 
actually  standing  by  while  the  others  put 
the  conspiracy  into  effect,  is  guilty 
though  he  intends  to  take  no  active  part 
in  the  crime . 


492.  To     proceed      further      let     us      see  what 

sequence  of  events  have  been  attributed  by  the 
prosecution  to  prove  the  birth  of  conspiracy, 
association  of  different  persons  with  each  other  to 
hatch  the  conspiracy,  preparations  made  by  the 
accused  persons  and  its  execution.  In  this  regard 
the  prosecutions  has  relied  upon  the  following 
sequences : - 

1 .     Accused  Mahal  Singh  and  Wadhawa  Singh, 


475 


since  proclaimed  offenders,  prevailed  upon 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  to  eliminate  S.Beant 
Singh,  he  being  the  main  hurdle  in 
creation  of  'Khalistan'  and  enemy  number 
one  of  the  Sikh  comunnity. 

2.  Jagtar   Singh   Hawara   came   to    India  to 
do     the     needful     and     stayed     with  the 
absconding    accused    Kuldeep    Singh    @  Ram 
Singh     in     H.No.341-A,      Nandgram  Colony, 
Ghaziabad   (UP) . 

3.  Sometime  in  March/April  1995, 
accused  Harjit  Singh,  who  is  an  old  friend 
Balwant  Singh,  came  to  India  and  met 
Balwant  Singh  at  Patiala  and  stayed  with 
him  and  both  of  them  also  agreed  to  kill 
Beant  Singh  because  of  his  attrocities  on 
Sikh  community.  Balwant  Singh  agreed  to 
do,  provided  necessary  inputs  are  made 
available.  Harjit  Singh  assured  all  help 
to  Balwant  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  gave 
the  telephone  number  of  Bhushan  Sirhandi 
for  future  contacts  in  this  regard. 

4.  Some  time  in  early  June,  1995  Harjit 
Singh  rang  up  Balwant  Singh  on  the 
aforesaid  Telephone  Number  and  told  him 
that  some  old  sikh  gentleman  would  contact 
him   in   connection   with   the   task   they  had 


476 


disclosed  and  agreed  to  execute. 

5.  In  June,  1995,  Manjinder  Singh  @ 
Babaji,  s/o  Ujagar  Singh  (a  BKI  activist), 
came  to  Delhi  and  stayed  in  room  no.  37  of 
Gurudwara  Seesh  Gan j ,  Delhi. Said  Manjinder 
Singh  along  with  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
established  contacts  with  accused  Balwant 
Singh  on  the  telephone  number  of  Bhusahn 
Sirhindi . 

6.  On  June,  23.6.1995,  Manjinder  Singh  @ 
Babaji  booked  Room  No. 203  in  Surya  Guest 
House,  Darya  Gan j ,  Delhi,  where  he, 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  assembled  and  discussed  the 
security  arrangement  of  S.Beant  Singh  and 
also  the  modalities  to  assassinate  S.Beant 
Singh . 

7 .  After  returning  from  Delhi  to 
Patiala,  accused  Balwant  Singh  met 
Dilawar  Singh  and  discussed  with  him  his 
meeting  with  Manjinder  Singh  @  Babaji  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara.  Both  Balwant  Singh 
and  Dilawar  Singh  decided  to  work 
together  to  carry  out  the  plan  to 
assassinate  S.Beant  Singh.  They  also 
associated  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  who 
was  their  close  friend,    in  the  conspiracy 


477 


8.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  contacted 
Shamsher  Singh  s/o  Surjit  Singh  r/o 
Village  Ukasi  Jattan,  Distt  Patiala,  some 
time  in  June,  1995  and  joined  him  in  the 
conspiracy . 

9.  In  July,  1995  accused  Paramjeet 
Singh,  who  was  already  member  of 
conspiracy,  introduced  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
to  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  in  New  Delhi,  and 
told  him  that  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
is  a  member  of  Babbar  Khalsa  International 
and  had  returned  from  Pakistan.  Paramjeet 
Singh  requested  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  to  help 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  the  'task'  for 
which  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  agreed. 

10.  Later  on,  in  the  same  month  i.e  July, 
1995  Paramjeet  Singh,  Navjot  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  met  Jagrup  Singh  at 
his  house  in  Mohali,  Paramjeet  Singh  told 
them  that  S.Beant  Singh,  then  CM  Punjab 
and  KPS  Gill  DGP  Punjab  were  to  be  killed, 
as  they  were  responsible  for  the  killing 
of  several  jathedars  in  false  encounters. 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  assured  the 
availability  of  arms  and  explosives  for 
this  purpose  and  all  the  aforesaid  agreed 
to  the  said  plan. 


478 


11.  In  the  first  week  of  July,  1995 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  held  a  meeting 
with  accused  Balwant  Singh  at  latter ' s 
residence  i.e  H.N0.68/A,  Rattan  Nagar, 
Patiala  and  discussed  the  security 
arrangements  for  S.Beant  Singh.  They 
finalised  the  plan  to  kill  S.Beant  Singh 
through  a  'human  bomb'  in  the  Punjab  & 
Haryana  Civil  Secretariat  for  which  they 
decided  to  get  stitched  a  cloth  belt  to  be 
stuffed  with  explosives  etc  which  was  to 
be  strapped  by  the  assassin.  They  also 
decided  to  procure  an  Ambassador  Car  to 
facilitate  the  entry  of  the  assassin  into 
the  Secretariat.  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  took 
up  the  responsibility  of  arranging  the 
car.  Few  more  uniforms  were  also  got 
stitched  as  suggested  by  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara . 

12.  Around  10th  August,  1995  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  Shamsher  Singh  engaged  Truck 
No.  PB12-A-7947  of  Sapinder  Singh  alias 
Pappu  (Shamsher 's  cousin)  from  Village 
Lalroo  and  in  the  said  Truck  they  went  to 
a  place  near  Ajnala  in  Amritsar  Distt. 
close  to  Indo-Pak  border  and  from  there 
brought  two  bags  full  of  explosives.  The 
said  bags   were   brought    in   the    said  truck 


479 


to  Village  Ukasi  Jattan.  Shamsher  Singh  & 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  concealed  these  bags 
in  the  house  of  Shamsher  Singh  in  Village 
Ukasi  Jattan,   Distt.  Patiala. 

13.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  brought 
a  big  sack  on  a  Scooter  from  the  house  of 
Shamsher  Singh  in  Village  Ukasi  Jattan  to 
the  house  of  accused  Nasib  Singh  in 
Village  Jhingran  Kalan,  P.S.Kurali,  Distt. 
Ropar.  The  said  big  sack  contained  two 
' kattas '  containing  explosives  and  remote 
control  devices  etc.  Accused  Nasib  Singh 
at  the  behest  of  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
concealed  the  said  explosives  etc  in  his 
house  fully  knowing  that  it  will  be  used 
to  kill  Beant  Singh. 

14.  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  purchased  a  steel  grey  colour 
Ambassador  Car  No.  DBA-9598  on  20.8.1995 
for  Rs.32,000/-  from  Smt . Reva  Dutta,  w/o 
Shri  S.K. Dutta,  r/o  Paschim  Vihar,  New 
Delhi,  to  be  used  in  the  commission  of  the 
crime.  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  had  falsely 
signed  the  delivery  note  of  the  said  car 
as  Basant  Singh.  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  brought 
car  no.  DBA-9598  to  the  house  No.B-50, 
Vishwakarma  Park,  Laxmi  Nagar,  Shakarpur, 
Delhi    of    Paramjit    Singh.     Paramjit  Singh 


480 


kept  the  said  car  at  his  house  from  20th 
August  to  the  morning  of  24th  August, 
1995. 

15.  On  23.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
telephonically  sent  a  coded  message  to 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  at  the  residence  of  Shri 
Mohan  Raj  Shekhar,  his  employer,  to  reach 
Punjabi  University,  Patiala  on  the  next 
day  with  the  said  car. 

16.  On  24.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  along 
with  Paramjeet  Singh  left  Delhi  by  Car  No. 
DBA-9598  and  reached  Punjabi  University, 
Patiala,  where  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Balwant  Singh  met  them.  They  decided 
that  the  next  meeting  would  be  held  in 
Gurdwara  Dukh  Nivaran  at  7.00  a.m  next  day 
i.e  25.8.1995. 

17.  On  25.8.1995,  Paramjeet  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  reached  Gurudwara  Dukh 
Nivaran,  Patiala,  in  Car  No.  DBA-9598, 
where  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Balwant  Singh 
and  Dilawar  Singh  were  already  present. 
Thereafter  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Paramjeet 
Singh,  Balwant  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
and  Dilawar  Singh  left  Patiala  in  Car  No. 
DBA-9598  and  reached  Village  Jhingra 
Kalan,      P.S.Kurali,      Distt.      Ropar.  They 


481 


collected  two  bags  containing  remote 
control  devices,  electric  wires  and 
explosives  (RDX)  etc  from  the  house  of 
Nasib  Singh,  where  they  were  earlier  kept 
by  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

18.  Thereafter ,  on  the  same  day  i.e 
25.8.1995,  all  of  them  reached  H. No. 981, 
Phase  4,  Mohali  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh 
who  was  also  a  close  friend  of  acussed 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  and  who 
was  also  having  leaning  towards  task  and 
thus  made  part  of  conspiracy.  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara,  kept  some  of  the  explosive 
materials  out  of  the  aforesaid  two  bags. 

19.  Then,  all  of  them  i.e  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara,  Paramjit  Singh,  Balwant 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  &  Dilawar  Singh 
went  to  H. No. 243,  Phase  7,  Mohali  of 
Jagrup  Singh,  where  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Paramjeet  Singh,  kept  the  remote 
control  devices  and  the  remaining 
explosive  materials. 

20.  On  26.8.1995,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
asked  Paramjeet  Singh  to  contact  Dilawar 
Singh,  (assassin),  and  get  car  No.  DBA- 
9598  painted  to  'off  white'  to  give  it  a 
look    of    an    official    car.    Gurmeet  Singh, 


482 


Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh 
(assassin)  and  one  other,  took  car  No. 
DBA-9598,  to  shop  No. 24,  Sector  7, 
Chandigarh  of  Surendra  Sharma  and 
delivered  it  for  painting  it  'off  white'. 
Lakhwinder  Singh  paid  advance  of  Rs.1500/- 
and  they  insisted  that  the  car  should  be 
ready  by  29.8.1995  or  latest  by  30.8.1995. 

21.  On  27th  or  28th  August ,  1 9 95 ,  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  got  the  waist  of  a  khaki 
colour  pant  loosened  by  Anil  Kumar, 
tailor,  for  use  by  Dilawar  Singh.  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  after  procuring  the  explosive 
materials  and  storing  them  in  Nasib 
Singh's  house  at  Village  Jhingra  Kalan  and 
purchasing  the  car  no.  DBA  9598  and 
leaving  it  with  Paramjit  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  at  Delhi,  went  to  Patiala  again 
on  21st  August,  1995  and  met  Balwant 
Singh.  On  22.8.1995  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Balwant  Singh  brought  some  explosive 
material  to  Balwant  Singh's  house  in 
Patiala . 

22.  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh 
got  stitched  two  cloth  belts  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  belt  bomb,  from 
Stitch-Co  Jeans,  A.C.  Market,  Patiala. 
Delivery      of      one      belt      was      taken  on 


483 


25.8.1995  evening  and  that  of  the  second 
one  on  27.8.1995  evening. 

23.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  &  Balwant 
Singh  also  purchased  other  materials 
required  for  preparation  of  the  bomb 
including  electric  wires,  battery,  switch 
and  ball  bearings  etc  from  Patiala.  The 
explosive  material  that  was  brought  on 
22.8.1995  to  Balwant  Singh's  house  was 
filled  in  one  of  the  cloth  belts  in 
Balwant  Singh's  house  was  filled  in  one  of 
the  cloth  belts  in  Balwant  Singh's  house. 
Some  ball  bearings  were  also  added  to  it. 

24.  On  28.8.1995  Balwant  Singh,  Dilawar 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Gurmeet  Singh 
and  Lakhwinder  Singh  remade  the  belt  bomb 
by  adding  some  more  explosive  material  and 
RDX  and  nuts/bolts  into  the  cloth  belt  in 
the  house  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  at 
house  NO. 981,  Phase. IV,  SAS  Nagar,  Mohali 
during  night  hours.  It  was  agreed  that 
accused  Dilawar  Singh  will  wear  the  belt 
containing  the  explosives  etc  and  will  act 
as  human  bomb  to  kill  Beant  Singh. 

25.  On  29.8.1995,  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Jagrup  Singh 
and    Paramjit    Singh    concealed    the  remote 


484 


control  devices,  explosives  and  wires  etc 
in  the  cavity  of  the  harmonium  brought  by 
Jagrup  Singh.  The  aforesaid  materials  had 
been  brought  by  the  aforesaid  accused 
persons  to  the  house  of  Jagrup  Singh  on 
25.8.1995.  The  said  harmonium  was  kept  in 
the  house  of  Jagrup  Singh.  Further,  the 
aforesaid  accused  concealed  the  remaining 
firearms  and  explosives  in  two  tubes  and  a 
plastic  cover.  Thereafter  Navjot  Singh 
took  the  above  material  to  his  house  at 
H. No. 889,  Phase  3-B-2  along  with  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
concealed  it  there. 

26.  In  the  evening  of  29.8.1995  accused 
Dilawar  and  Balwant  Singh  went  to  the  shop 
of  Surinder  Sharma  on  the  scooter  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh  and  they  asked  for  the 
Car.  But  the  car  was  not  ready  at  that 
time.  Surendra  Sharma  told  them  that  the 
car  would  be  delivered  on  the  next  day  i.e 
30.8.1995. 

27.  In  the  forenoon  of  30.8.1995,  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  again  went 
to  the  shop  of  Surender  Sharma  on  Scooter 
No.PCP-2085  belonging  to  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh  for  taking  delivery  of 
car  no . DBA  9598.   Since  the  car  was  not  yet 


485 


ready,  both  of  them  waited  there.  Later, 
in  the  afternoon  when  the  painting  work 
was  about  to  be  complete,  Balwant  Singh 
left  on  the  scooter  and  came  back  to  the 
shop  after  sometime  with  Dalbir  Singh  @ 
Maula  after  collecting  the  Khaki  pant  from 
Lakhwinder  Singh.  The  pant  was  taken  out 
of  the  dickey  of  the  scooter  and  handed 
over  to  Dilawar  Singh.  The  Scooter  was 
given  to  Maula.  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  took  delivery  of  the  car  and  made 
the  balance  payment  of  Rs.1500/-. 

28.  On  30.8.1995  at  about  3.00  p.m. 
accused  Balwant  Singh  along  with  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  procured  car  no.  DBA  9598, 
from  Surendra  Sharma  after  it  had  been 
painted  "off-white".  The  said  car  was 
brought  by  them  to  the  house  of  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  at  Mohali  where  Dilawar 
Singh  strapped  the  belt  bomb  containing 
explosives  on  his  body.  Balwant  Singh, 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Dilawar  Singh 
proceeded  to  accomplish  the  mission. 
Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  also  joined  them 
on  the  way.  Accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
got  down  from  the  car  on  way  and  went  to 
Chandigarh  Bus  Stand.  When  Balwant  Singh, 
Dilawar  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
reached    the    Secretariat,    they    found  that 


486 


S.Beant  Singh  had  already  left. 

29.  On  the  night  of  30.8.1995,  Dilawar 
Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  took  car  No.  DBA 
9598  to  house  No. 3031/1  Sector  45, 
Chandigarh  and  stayed  there  for  the  night 
with  Chamkaur  Singh  brother  of  Dilawar 
Singh . 

30.  On  31.8.1995  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
and  Dilawar  Singh  went  to  Punjab  &  Haryana 
Civil  Secretariat  in  Car  No .  DBA  9598  and 
reached  there  at  about  3.00  p.m..  Accused 
Balwant  Singh  followed  them  on  his  Scooter 
No.  PB-11-1955.  After  sometime  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  left  Secretariat  leaving  behind 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  in  the 
car.  Both  of  them  waited  for  the  coming 
down  of  S.Beant  Singh  at  the  VIP  Gate  of 
the  Secretariat.  As  soon  as  S.Beant  Singh 
was  about  to  sit  in  the  car,  the  'Human 
Bomb'  approached  him  and  caused  explosion 
killing  S.Beant  Singh  and  others  and  also 
causing  injuries  to  many.  Accused  Dilawar 
Singh  also  got  exterminated  in  the 
process . 

31.  After  the  commission  of  the  crime 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara     run    away    and    stayed    at  various 


487 


places  in  India  and  remainedf  in  touch 
with  each  other.  For  some  time  they  also 
stayed  together  with  another  accused 
Kuldip  Singh  @  Ram  Singh. 


493.  As   stated  earlier,    the  entire   case  of  the 

prosecution  is  based  on  circumstantial  evidence  and 
after  considering  the  case  put  forward  by  the 
prosecution  in  consonance  with  the  evidence, it 
comes  out  that  the  prosecution  has  relied  upon  the 
following  main  circumstances  to  prove  its  case  as 
to  the  factum  of  conspiracy  between  all  the  accused 
persons  and  its  execution. 


1.  The  motive  for  commission  of  the  crime 
as  reiterated  by  accused  Balwant  Singh 
while  confessing  the  crime. 

2.  Judicial  confessions  made  by  the 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Balwant 
Singh  and  Shamsher  Singh. 

3.  Extra  judicial  confessions  made  by  the 
accused  persons  to  different  witnesses. 

4 .  Recoveries  of  incriminating  articles  on 
disclosure  statement  made  by  some  of 
the  accused  persons. 

5.  The  act  &  conduct  of  the  accused 
persons  after  commission  of  the  crime. 

6.  Direct  evidence  of  some  witnesses  as  to 
the  factum  of  conspiracy  by  the  accused 
persons . 


488 


494.  As  per  the  law  settled  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex 

Court,  the  moot  question  is,  how  to  prove  the 
meeting  of  mind  and  entering  into  conspiracy?  For 
this  one  may  refer  to  the  judgment  of  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  in  case  of  Kehar  Singh  Versus  State  (Delhi 
Administration)  (supra)  known  as  Indira  Gandhi 
murder  case,  in  which  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held 
that  the  conspiracy  can  be  proved  by  circumstantial 
evidence  as  well  as  by  direct  evidence  and  that 
though  the  conspiracy  is  hatched  in  secrecy,  the 
prosecution  must  prove  some  physical  manifestation 
of  agreement  although  it  may  not  be  necessary  to 
prove  actual  meeting  of  two  persons  or  the  words 
by  which  the  two  persons  communicated.  The  Supreme 
Court  further  said  that  the  evidence  regarding 
transmission  of  thoughts  and  sharing  of  unlawful 
design  may  be  sufficient. 

4  95.  Similarly    in    Leela   Dass   Versus    Union  of 

India,    1999,    Criminal   Law  Journal,    page   1807,  the 

Hon'ble  Calcutta  High  Court  held  that  since  the 
direct  evidence  to  prove  the  conspiracy  is  rarely 
available,  therefore,  the  circumstantial  evidence 
must  be  clear  and  the  circumstances  proved  before, 
during  and  after  the  occurrence  have  to  be 
considered  to  decide  about  the  complicity  of  the 
accused . 

496.  Before  taking  the  evidence  of  prosecution, 


489 


let  us  take  a  issue  raised  by  learned  defence 
counsel  as  to  the  applicability  of  Section  10  of 
the  Evidence  Act  to  the  case  in  hand  as  he 
submitted  that  the  entire  evidence  of  the 
prosecution  regarding  judicial  confessions  made  by 
some  of  the  accused  persons,  extra  judicial 
confessions  made  by  the  accused  persons  and  the  act 
and  conduct  of  the  accused  persons  after  the 
commission  of  the  crime,  can  not  be  considered  for 
any  purpose  whatsoever  either  to  prove  the  factum 
of  conspiracy  or  its  execution,  as  far  as  the 
accused  other  than  who  had  allegedly  suffered,  by 
taking  shelter  of  Section  10  of  Evidence  Act 
because  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act  clearly  says 
that  once  the  conspiracy  is  terminated  and  ceased 
to  exist,  no  evidence  thereafter  can  be  considered 
to  apply  the  presumption  of  Section  10.  While 
saying  so,  he  has  relied  upon  Mirza  Akbar  Vs.  King 
AIR  1940,  Privy  Council,  page  176,  Jayendra 
Saraswati  Vs.  State  of  Tamilnadu,  2005  (1)  RCR, 
(Criminal) ,  page  629  and  Bhawan  Sarup  and  others 
Vs.  State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1965,  Supreme  Court, 
page  682 . 

497.  However,     after    considering    the    case  law 

relied  upon  by  both  the  parties  on  this  aspect  and 
after  considering  their  rival  contentions,  it  comes 
out  that  the  plea  raised  by  learned  defence  counsel 
is  true  to  some  extent  but  is  not  proper 
interpretation  of  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act. 


490 


498.  No  doubt,  as  alleged  by  learned  defence 
counsel,  the  interpretation  of  Section  10  of  the 
Evidence  Act  was  taken  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
directly  in  Bhagwan  Sarup's  case  (Supra),  where 
while  dealing  with  the  nature  of  the  evidence  that 
should  be  adduced  to  sustain  the  case  of 
conspiracy,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that  the 
conspiracy  may  be  proved  by  direct  evidence  or  may 
be  inferred  from  acts  and  conduct  of  the  parties. 
There  is  no  difference  between  the  mode  of  proof  of 
the  offence  of  conspiracy  and  that  of  any  other 
offence;  it  can  be  established  by  direct  evidence 
or  by  circumstantial  evidence  but  Section  10  of  the 
Evidence  Act  introduces  the  doctrine  of  agency  and 
if  the  conditions  laid  down  therein  are  satisfied, 
the  act  done  by  one  is  admissible  against  the 
conspirator . 

499.  The  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  after  reiterating 
the  wordings  of  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act, 
interpreted  the  same  in  the  following  words : - 

"This  section,  as  the  opening  words 
indicate,  will  come  into  play  only  when 
the  Court  is  satisfied  that  there  is 
reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  two  or 
more  persons  have  conspired  together  to 
commit  an  offence  or  an  actionable  wrong, 
that  is  to  say,  there  should  be  a  prima 
facie  evidence  that  a  person  was  a  party 
to  the  conspiracy  before  his  acts  can  be 
used     against     his     co-conspirators.  Once 


491 


such  a  reasonable  ground  exists,  anything 
said,  done  or  written  by  one  of  the 
conspirators  in  reference  to  the  common 
intention,  after  the  said  intention  was 
entertained,  is  relevant  against  the 
others,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  the  existence  of  the  conspiracy 
but  also  for  proving  that  the  other  person 
was  a  party  to  it.  The  evidentiary  value 
of  the  said  acts  is  limited  by  the 
circumstances,  namely,  that  the  acts  shall 
be  in  reference  to  their  common  intention 
and  in  respect  of  a  period  after  such 
intention  was  entertained  by  any  one  of 
them.  The  expression  "in  reference  to 
their  common  intention"  is  very 
comprehensive  and  it  appears  to  have  been 
designedly  used  to  give  it  a  wider  scope 
than  the  words  "in  furtherance  of"  in  the 
English  law;  with  the  result,  anything, 
said,  done  or  written  by  a  co-conspirator, 
after  the  conspiracy  was  formed,  will  be 
evidence  against  the  other  before  he 
entered  the  field  of  conspiracy  or  after 
he  left  it.  Another  important  limitation 
implicit  in  the  language  is  indicated  by 
the  expressed  scope  of  its  relevancy. 
Anything  so  said,  done  or  written  is  a 
relevant  fact  only  "as  against  each  of  the 
persons  believed  to  be  so  conspiring  as 
well  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the 
existence  of  the  conspiracy  as  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  any  such  person 
was  a  party  to  it.  It  can  not  be  used  in 
favour  of  the  other  party  or  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  such  a  person  was 
not  a  party  to  the  conspiracy. 

500.  In   short,    the    section   can   be    analysed  as 

follows : 


(1)      There     shall     be     a     prima  facie 


492 


evidence  affording  a  reasonable 
ground  for  a  Court  to  believe  that 
two  or  more  persons  are  members  of 
a  conspiracy; 

(2)  if  the  said  condition  is 
fulfilled,  anything  said,  done  or 
written  by  any  one  of  them  in 
reference  to  their  common  intention 
will  be  evidence  against  the  other; 

(3)  anything  said,  done  or  written  by 
him  should  have  been  said,  done  or 
written  by  him  after  the  intention 
was  formed  by  any  one  of  them; 

(4)  it  would  also  be  relevant  for  the 
said  purpose  against  another  who 
entered  the  conspiracy  whether  it 
was  said,  done  or  written  before  he 
entered  the  conspiracy  or  after  he 
left  it;  and 

(5)  it  can  only  be  used  against  a  co- 
conspirator and  not  in  his  favour. 

501.  Actually,  the  above  said  principles  were 
laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Sardar 
Sardul  Singh  Caweshar  Vs.  State  of  Maharashtra, 
AIR,  1965,  Supreme  Court,  page  682  and  those  were 
reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Bhagwan 
Swrup ' s  case    (Supra) . 

502.  Not   even   this,    these   principles  were 


493 


again  reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Kehar 
Singh  Vs.  State  (Supra)  known  as  Indira  Gandhi 
murder  case  where  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court,  in  a  case 
of  similar  facts  &  circumstances  involving  the 
dispute  of  conspiracy  leading  to  the  assassination 
of  Indira  Gandhi,  then  Prime  Minister,  again  stated 
that : - 

"it  is  well  settled  that  act  or  action  of 
one  of  the  accused  could  not  be  used  as 
evidence  against  the  other.  But  an 
exception  has  been  carved  out  in  Section 
10  in  cases  of  conspiracy  and  once  it  is 
established  that  there  is  reasonable 
ground  to  believe  that  two  or  more 
persons  have  conspired  together,  in  the 
light  of  the  language  of  Section  120-A, 
the  evidence  of  action  or  statements  made 
by  one  of  the  accused,  could  be  used  as 
evidence  against  the  other  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  the  existence  of  conspiracy  as 
well  as  the  fact  that  the  other  persons 
was  a  party  to  it." 

503.  Not  even  this,    the  plea  raised  by  learned 

defence  counsel  has  been  answered  by  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  in  Sardul  Singh's  case  (Supra),  where 
decision    of    Privy    Council    in    Mirza    Akbar's  case 

(Supra)  has  been  referred  to  and  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  settled  that : - 


"The  limits  of  the  admissibility  of 
evidence  in  conspiracy  case  under  Section 
10  of  the  Evidence  Act  have  been 
authoritatively  laid  down  by  the  Privy 
Council  in  Mirza  Akbar  Vs.  King  Emperor 
(Supra)  .    In  that   case,    their  Lordships  of 


494 


the  Privy  Council  held  that  Section  10  of 
the  Evidence  Act  must  be  construed  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  that  the 
thing  done,  written  or  spoken,  was 
something  done  in  carrying  out  the 
conspiracy  and  was  receivable  as  a  step 
in  the  proof  of  the  conspiracy.  They 
notice  that  evidence  receivable  under 
Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act  of 
"anything  said,  done  or  written  by  any 
one  of  such  persons:  (i.e.,  conspirators) 
must  be  "in  reference  to  their  common 
intention . " 


504.  Actually    this    plea    has    been     raised  by 

learned  defence  counsel  to  say  that  the  confessions 
made  by  some  of  the  accused  persons  after  their 
arrest  can  not  be  taken  into  consideration  even  if 
the  same  are  proved  to  be  true  and  voluntarily 
made,  against  any  other  accused  persons. 
Admittedly,  the  plea  of  learned  defence  counsel  is 
legally  tenable  to  this  extent  but  as  far  as  the 
plea  that  anything  proved  against  a  co-accused 
concerning  his  act  and  conduct  in  prosecution  of 
conspiracy,  can  not  be  considered  against  the  other 
accused  under  Section  10  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act 
is  concerned,    it  is     not  tenable. 


50  5.  Later     on,      in     State     of     Tamilnadu  Vs. 

Nalini ' s    case     (Supra),     which    is    known    as  Rajiv 

Gandhi  murder  trial,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  again 
considered  this  question  and  held  that  where  it  is 
prima  facie  proved  that  there  was  a  criminal 
conspiracy     between      two      or     more     persons  then 


495 


anything  said  or  done  by  any  of  conspirator  become 
substantive  evidence  against  the  other,  provided 
that  should  have  been  a  statement  in  reference  to 
their  common  intention.  And  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
answered  the  relevancy  of  a  confession  made  by  an 
accused  after  his  arrest  against  the  co-accused  in 
the  following  words : - 


"But  the  contention  that  any  statement  of 
a  conspirator,  whatever  be  the  extent  of 
time,  would  gain  admissibility  under 
Section  10  of  it  was  made  "in  reference" 
to  the  common  intention,  is  too  board  a 
proposition  for  acceptance.  We  can  not 
overlook  that  the  basic  principle  which 
underlies  in  Section  10  of  the  Evidence 
Act  is  the  theory  of  agency.  Every 
conspirator  is  an  agent  of  his  associate 
in  carrying  out  the  object  of  the 
conspiracy.  Section  10,  which  is  an 
exception  to  the  general  rule,  while 
permitting  the  statement  made  by  one 
conspirator  to  be  admissible  as  against 
another  conspirator  restricts  it  to  the 
statement  made  during  the  period  when  the 
agency  subsisted.  Once  it  is  shown  that  a 
person  became  snapped  out  of  the 
conspiracy,  any  statement  made  subsequent 
thereto  can  not  be  used  as  against  the 
other  conspirators  under  Section  10. 

506.  The    Hon'ble   Apex   Court    further   held  that 

whether  a  particular  accused  had  ceased  to  be  a 
conspirator  or  not,  at  any  point  of  time,  is  a 
matter  which  can  be  decided  only  on  the  facts  of 
that  particular  case.  Normally  a  conspirator's 
connections    with    the    conspiracy   would   get  snapped 


496 


after  he  is  nabbed  by  the  Police  and  kept  in  their 
custody  because  he  would  thereby  ceased  to  be  the 
agent  of  other  conspirators  and  as  such  a 
confession  made  by  an  accused  can  not  be  used  as 
substantive  evidence  against  the  other  accused  on 
the  principle  enunciated  in  Section  10  of  the 
Evidence  Act.  But  it  can  be  used  only  for  the 
limited  purpose  of  corroboration  of  the  other 
evidence,  although  such  a  confession  is  admissible 
and  reliable  and  can  be  used  against  a  confessor  as 
substantive  evidence. 


507.  With     the     above     discussed     legal  back- 

ground, let  us  now  take  the  main  circumstances  of 
the  prosecution  to  bring  home  the  factum  of 
conspiracy  between  the  accused  facing  trial  in  this 
case . 


Motive  behind  conspiracy,  if  any, 
its  proof  and  relevancy. 

508.  First   of   all,    let   us   take   the  existence 

of  the  motive,  if  any  and  its  relevancy.  Needless 
to  say,  the  prosecution  is  not  bound  to  prove  the 
motive  of  offence  in  any  criminal  trial,  in  as 
much  as  motive  is  known  only  to  the  perpetrator  of 
the  crime  and  may  not  be  known  to  the  others . 
However,  if  the  motive  is  alleged  and  proved  by  the 
prosecution,  the  court  has  to  consider  it  and  see 
whether  it  is  adequate. 


497 


509.  In  this  regard,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in 
Suresh  Chandra  Bahri  and  others  Vs.  State  of  Bihar, 
AIR,  1994,  Supreme  Court,  Page  2420  held  that 
sometimes  motive  plays  and  important  role  and 
becomes  a  compelling  force  to  commit  a  crime  and 
therefore  motive  behind  the  crime  is  a  relevant 
factor  for  which  evidence  may  be  adduced.  A  motive 
is  something  which  prompts  a  person  to  form  and 
opinion  or  intention  to  do  certain  illegal  act  or 
even  a  legal  act  but  with  illegal  means  with  a 
view  to  achieve  that  intention.  In  a  case  where 
there  is  clear  proof  of  motive  for  the  commission 
of  the  crime  it  affords  added  support  to  the 
finding  of  the  Court  that  the  accused  was  guilty 
for  the  offence  charged  with.  But  the  absence  of 
proof  of  motive  does  not  render  the  evidence 
bearing  on  the  guilt  of  the  accused  nonetheless 
untrustworthy  or  unreliable  because  most  often  it 
is  only  the  perpetrator  of  the  crime  alone  who 
knows  as  to  what  circumstances  prompted  him  to  a 
certain  course  of  action  leading  to  the  commission 
of  the  crime. 

510.  Accordingly  in  the  present  case,  the 
motive  behind  this  assassination  as  alleged  by  the 
prosecution  is  duly  established  on  record  from  the 
confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  not  made  to 
the  Police  or  a  Magistrate  but  before  this  Court 
during  the  trial  and  after  the  completion  of  trial. 


498 


511.  In  this  regard,  as  stated  earlier, 
accused  Balwant  Singh  from  the  very  beginning  of 
the  trial  admitted  and  confessed  that  he  and 
deceased  assassin  Dilawar  Singh  had  killed  Beant 
Singh  for  the  cause  of  independence  of  Khalistan 
and  because  of  the  fact  that  Beant  Singh  was  killer 
of  thousands  of  innocent  Sikhs  and  started  claiming 
himself  as  incarnation  of  Guru  Gobind  Singh.  He 
also  justified  the  killing  with  a  theory  that 
during  the  period  of  'Dharam  Yudh  Morcha'  by  the 
Sikh  community  for  the  religious  and  political 
demands  of  the  Sikhs,  the  Govt  of  India,  led  by 
Congress,  was  not  happy  and  with  an  intention  to 
suppress  the  movement,  the  Govt  of  India  in  June, 
1984  mounted  an  operation  known  as  'Blue  Star 
Operation',  by  which  the  armed  force  personnel 
entered  the  Golden  Temple  Complex  at  Amritsar  and 
ravaged  the  same  resulting  into  loss  of  life  and 
property  as  well  as  damage  to  Akal  Takht  at  Golden 
Temple  and  killed  thousands  of  innocent  persons. 

512.  And  as  per  this  accused,  it  has  offended 
the  religious  feelings  of  Sikh  community  and 
resentment  was  expressed  by  every  Sikh.  Not  even 
this,  after  the  killing  of  Indira  Gandhi,  then 
Prime  Minister  of  India,  the  Congress  Govt  indulged 
into  riots  in  Delhi  and  killed  so  many  innocent 
Sikh  persons,  who  were  having  no  connections  with 
the  murder  and  no  action  has  been  taken  against  the 
guilty . 


499 


513.  He  further  claimed  that  after  that  the 
congress  govt  formed  Govt  in  Punjab  and  made  Beant 
Singh  as  Chief  Minister  despite  the  fact  that  the 
elections  of  1992  were  boycotted  by  almost  all  the 
political  parties  of  the  State.  Beant  Singh  after 
becoming  Chief  Minister  indulged  into  killing  of 
thousands  of  innocent  Sikhs  in  false  encounters  and 
their  dead  bodies  were  cremated  as  unclaimed  and 
all  this  was  done  by  him  on  the  instigation  of  the 
congress  govt  at  Delhi.  Not  even  this,  after  that 
he  started  claiming  himself  to  be  an  Ambassador  of 
peace  and  compared  himself  with  Guru  Gobind  Singh. 

514.  And  because  of  this  act  &  conduct  of  Beant 
Singh,  they  decided  to  kill  him  and  he  along  with 
deceased  Assassin  Dilawar  Singh  killed  him  on 
31.8.1995  and  he  being  a  member  of  'Khalistan' 
Liberation  Force  will  continue  his  movement  for  the 
liberation  of  khalistan. 

515.  Even  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  (since 
proclaimed  offender)  has  also  confessed  this  crime 
with  the  same  theory  and  motive.  The  prosecution 
alleged  that  the  main  organization  behind  this 
conspiracy  was  Babbar  Khalsa  International,  headed 
by  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mahal  Singh,  who 
hatched  this  conspiracy  in  collusion  with  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara.  Even  this  fact  is  also  proved 
on     the      file      in     view     of     certain  documentary 


500 


evidence . 


516.  No  doubt,  as  submitted  by  learned  defence 
counsel,  even  if  we  ignore  the  documents,  Ex.P137 
to  Ex.P149,  relating  to  the  constitution  and  the 
activities  of  the  Babbar  Khalsa  International, 
being  not  proved  as  per  the  reguirements  of  the  law 
and  based  on  hear-say  evidence,  still,  there  is 
another  set  of  facts,  which  proves  that  within 
hours  of  this  assassination,  Babbar  Khalsa 
International  had  claimed  the  responsibility  for 
killing  the  Beant  Singh  as  per  the  motive  put 
forward  by  accused  Balwant  Singh. 

517.  In    this    regard,    PW-38,    K.N. Prabhakar ,  of 
Hind      Samachar      Group      of      Papers       and  PW-35, 
P.Ganapati,    who   was   working   in   the   office   of  UNI, 
the  premier  news   agency  of   India,    have  proved  that 
within    hours    of    the    killing,     they    received  fax 
messages,    which   are   mark  AAA,    mark  BBB,    Mark  CCC, 
mark    DDD,     mark    FFF,     with    their    photocopies  and 
these   documents,    which   have   been   proved   to  have 
been  received  by  the  news  agencies,    are  clear  proof 
to     support     the     motive     theory     put     forward  by 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara. 

518.  Above  all,  PW-35,  V.Ganpati  categorically 
deposed  that  at  about  11.30  p.m.,    on  31.8.1995,  he 

was  informed  that  a  fax  message  has  been  received 
in  the  office  of  the  UNI  and  he  accordingly  cleared 


501 


the  fax  message  for  distribution  to  all  the 
subscribers.  He  further  deposed  that  on  6.9.1995 
another  message,  from  Babbar  Khalsa  International 
was  recovered  on  their  fax  machine  and  he  further 
identified  the  original  fax  messages,  mark  AAA  and 
mark  BBB  and  stated  that  he  handed  over  these 
messages  to  the  CBI .  Similarly,  PW-  38, 
K . N . Prabhakar ,  Personal  Assistant  to  the  editor 
Hind  Samachar,  Group  of  News  Papers,  Jalandhar 
deposed  that  on  31.8.1995,  he  received  fax  messages 
mark  DDD,  mark  EEE  from  Babbar  Khalsa  International 
claiming  responsibility  for  the  killing  of  Beant 
Singh.  On  7.9.1995  he  again  received  fax  message 
mark  FFF  and  all  these  fax  messages  were  handed 
over  to  the  CBI. 

519.  As    far    as    the    plea    of    learned  defence 

counsel  that  the  fax  massages  have  not  been 
verified  from  any  source,  is  concerned,  there  is  no 
force  in  this  plea  because  it  is  alleged  by  the 
prosecution  that  these  fax  massages  have  been 
received  from  Pakistan  and  if  it  is  so,  there  is  no 
reciprocal  arrangement  between  India  and  Pakistan 
to  issue  a  letter  of  request,  as  per  the  provisions 
of  Section  166-A  of  Cr.P.C,  either  to  record  the 
evidence  of  the  concerned  person  or  to  call  any 
witness  to  produce  any  such  record  to  verify  the 
source  of  fax  massages  or  its  authenticity.  As  such 
the  investigating  agency  cannot  be  penalised  for 
this    handicap    and   as    such   this    court   has    to  rely 


502 


upon  the  testimony  of  PW-35  and  PW-38  on  this 
aspect  specially  when  there  is  nothing  on  the  file 
to  disbelieve  them. 

520.  No  doubt  both  these  witnesses  could  not 
identify  the  signatures  of  the  persons,  who  signed 
these  fax  messages  but  the  prosecution  has  examined 
PW-207,  Harcharan  Singh,  a  co-villager  and  known 
person  of  Wadhawa  Singh  and  PW-209,  Tara  Singh,  a 
co-villager  of  Mehal  Singh  and  both  these  witnesses 
have  categorically  deposed  that  the  fax  messages, 
mark  AAA,  mark  DDD,  mark  EEE  and  mark  FFF,  bear  the 
signatures  of  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  and 
they  identify  their  signatures. 

521.  As  per  PW-207,  Wadhawa  Singh,  who  belongs 
to  his  Village  and  who  studied  with  him  in  the 
School  and  was  also  known  to  him,  being  a  member  of 
Co-operative  Society  of  the  Village  and  he  can 
identify  the  hand  writing  and  signatures  of  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  he  accordingly  identified  the  signatures 
of  Wadhawa  Singh  on  the  fax  messages.  Similarly, 
PW-209  has  also  identified  the  signatures  of  Mehal 
Singh  on  these  fax  messages.  Not  even  this,  PW-207 
has  also  identified  the  photographs  of  Wadhawa 
Singh  on  the  poster,  Ex.P150,  which  has  been  relied 
upon  by  the  prosecution  with  a  limited  purpose  of 
showing  the  factum  of  conspiracy  by  accused  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  Mehal   Singh  while   sitting  in  Pakistan. 


503 


522.  The  testimony  of  both  these  witnesses  have 
been  challenged  by  the  learned  defence  counsel  on 
the  plea  that  after  a  long  gap  of  10  to  15  years, 
no  body  can  identify  the  signature  and  hand  writing 
and  in  this  case  both  PW-207  and  PW-209  stated  that 
they  have  seen  the  hand  writing  of  accused  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  Mehal  Singh,  way  back  about  more  than  15 
years,  specially  when  they  have  no  direct 
association  with  the  said  persons.  However,  there 
is  no  force  in  this  plea  because  there  is  nothing 
on  the  record  to  say  that  both  these  witnesses  have 
not  seen  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 
while  writing  or  signing  the  documents  or  they  were 
having  any  motive  to  depose  so. 

523.  At  the  same  time,  no  suggestion  was  put  to 
both  these  witnesses  that  they  never  know  accused 
Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  and  they  have  never 
seen  them  while  writing  and  signing  the  documents. 
In  State  of  HP  Vs.  Thakur  Dass,  1982  Criminal  Law 
Journal,  page  1694,  the  Hon'ble  Himachal  Pradesh 
High  Court,  reiterated  the  well  settled  principle 
of  law  that  when  a  statement  made  by  a  witness  on 
oath  relating  to  some  facts  has  not  been  challenged 
in  cross  examination,  the  fact  in  question  must  be 
held  to  be  not  disputed.  Similar  are  the  facts  in 
hand  and  as  such  the  testimony  of  PW-207  and  PW-208 
remained  unrebutted  as  far  as  the  identity  of  the 
signatures  of  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 


504 


are  concerned. 


524.  No  doubt,  as  stated  earlier  the 
authenticity  of  documents,  Ex.P-137  to  Ex.P-149,  is 
not  established  as  per  the  law,  as  PW-100,  Dilbagh 
Singh,  who  had  brought  these  documents  admitted 
that  he  does  not  know  the  source  of  these  documents 
and  all  these  documents  are  the  photocopies 
collected  by  him  from  different  sources.  If  it  is 
so,  these  documents  are  based  on  hear-say  and  not 
authenticated  and  admissible  in  evidence. 

525.  However,  in  view  of  the  evidence  of  PW-207 
and  PW-209,  coupled  with  the  statement  of  PW-35  and 
PW-38,  it  is  proved  on  record  that  certainly,  the 
Babbar  Khalsa  International,  has  taken  the 
responsibility  for  the  killing  of  deceased  Beant 
Singh  and  this  fact  further  shows  that  Babbar 
Khalsa  International  was  also  a  perpetrator  of  the 
conspiracy  to  kill  Beant  Singh.  And  accused  Wadhawa 
Singh  and  Mehal  Singh  were  actively  associated 
with  this  conspiracy  to  fulfill  the  motive  for 
which  this  conspiracy  was  hatched.  And  lastly 
accused  Balwant  Singh  along  with  accused  assassin 
Dilawar  Singh,  were  also  having  a  motive  to  kill 
Beant  Singh,  may  be  under  a  bonafide  belief  that  by 
killing  Beant  Singh,  they  may  gain  their  religious 
goal.  Needless  to  say  the  crime  charged  is  not 
simply  the  murdering  a  human  being,  but  it  is  the 
crime    of    assassination    of    a    duly    elected  Chief 


505 


Minister  of  a  State.  No  doubt,  the  motive  for  the 
crime  was  not  personal  and  as  such  it  can  be 
perpetuated  only  under  such  a  motivated  religious 
goal,  by  playing  with  sentiments  of  vulnerable 
persons  like  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar 
Singh,  who  even  forget  that  this  act  is  going  to 
kill  some  innocent  persons  also  and  so  happens  in 
this  case. 


526.  Even    otherwise,     as    stated    earlier  under 

this  point,  the  only  relevant  question  is  whether 
the  remaining  accused  persons  of  this  trial,  except 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  assassin  Dilawar  Singh, 
were  also  the  conspirators  in  this  conspiracy  and 
they  did  different  acts  to  achieve  their  objective 
as  planed  i.e  to  kill  Beant  Singh. 


527.  As   discussed  earlier,    it   is  proved  on  the 

file  that  Babbar  Khalsa  International  has 
perpetuated  this  crime  either  directly  or 
indirectly.  No  doubt,  as  argued  by  learned  defence 
counsels,  the  story  of  the  prosecution  that  the 
conspiracy  of  this  crime  was  initiated  in  Pakistan 
by  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh,  has  not 
been  substantiated  during  the  trial,  as  none  of  the 
prosecution  witnesses  could  say  anything  or  to  show 
any  evidence  to  show  that  this  conspiracy  was 
initially  initiated  in  Pakistan.  At  the  same  time 
we  cannot  overlook  the  fact  with  the  kind  of 
bilateral  relations  between  India  and  Pakistan,  the 


506 


possibility  of  support  of  our  neigbhour  to  create 
unrest  in  India  cannot  be  ruled  out. 

528.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  submitted  by  the 
learned  defence  counsel,  the  conspiracy,  if  any, 
was  initiated  by  the  absconding  accused  Harjit 
Singh,  Manjinder  Singh  @  Baba  Ji  and  Resham  Singh, 
who  are  settled  in  U.S. A,  Germany  and  Norway.  And 
this  plea  shows  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  on  the 
international  level  to  kill  Beant  Singh.  As  such  it 
is  held  that  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal  Singh 
are  the  conspirators  of  this  conspiracy  and  they 
initiated  the  conspiracy,  while  sitting  in 
Pakistan . 

529.  No  doubt,  as  submitted  by  learned  defence 
counsels,  the  prosecution  has  also  failed  to  prove 
that  Babbar  Khalsa  International  is  banned 
organization,  as  per  the  provisions  of  Unlawful 
Activities  Prevention  Act,  1967,  as  no  order  of  the 
Tribunal  competent  under  this  Act,  to  declare  this 
organization  as  anti  India  and  Terrorist 
Organization  has  been  brought  on  record.  However, 
this  aspect  has  not  much  importance  or  relevancy  as 
far  as  the  factum  of  conspiracy  is  concerned 
because  as  stated  earlier  this  crime  is  not 
possible  except  with  a  planned  conspiracy. 

Recovery  of  car  No.  DBA- 95 98  near  the 
place   of  blast   and   its    link  with  the 


507 


case  and  the  accused  persons . 

530.  As  per  the  story  of  prosecution,  when 
scene  of  crime  was  inspected,  Car  No.  DBA-9598, 
exhibited  as  material  article,  Ex.P76,  was 
recovered  and  it  was  used  by  the  accused  persons  to 
enter  the  Secretariat  posing  the  same  to  be  an 
official  car,  and  ultimately  all  knots  of  genesis 
of  occurrence  were  untied  and  leads  the  police  to 
unearth  the  entire  conspiracy  including  the  role  of 
accused  persons.  If  it  is  so,  the  first  question 
comes  under  what  circumstances,  this  car  was 
recovered  from  the  spot  and  how  it  is  linked  with 
the  commission  of  crime  and  then  with  the  accused 
persons . 

531.  To  know  the  above  query,  let  us  take  the 
statement  of  PW-240,  Inspector  Nanha  Ram,  who  was 
the  first  Investigating  Officer  of  the  Chandigarh 
Police,  who  conducted  the  investigations,  till  it 
was  taken  over  by  the  CBI  and  accordingly,  when  he 
stepped  into  the  witness  box,  he  deposed  that  after 
reaching  at  the  spot  of  Bomb  Blast,  he  took  a 
cursory  look  of  the  entire  scene  of  crime  and 
started  immediate  remedial  steps  for  sending  the 
injured  to  the  Hospitals  to  save  them  and  then  he 
extricated  the  dead  bodies  and  conducted  a  detailed 
inspection . 

532.  He      further      deposed      that      during  his 


508 


inspection,  he  found  that  an  Ambassador  Car  bearing 
registration  No.  DBA-9598,  Ex.P-76,  was  lying 
abandoned  in  the  parking  area  towards  the  Haryana 
Secretariat  and  on  inspection,  he  found  that  the 
car  was  painted  afresh,  as  it  was  still  not  dried 
and  this  leads  to  a  suspicion  that  this  car  might 
have  been  used  in  the  crime  and  ultimately  he  took 
into  possession  that  car  after  conducting  the 
search  of  the  same  as  per  the  seizure  memo, 
Ex.PW177/6.  Similarly  on  search,  all  the  documents 
and  the  articles  recovered  from  the  car  were  taken 
into  possession  as  per  the  seizure  memo,  Ex.PW177/7 
and  it  includes  the  registration  certificate  of  the 
car,  Insurance  Cover  Note  along  with  other 
documents,  one  slip,  Ex.PW60/A,  which  was  later  on 
found  to  be  containing  the  couplet  written  by 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  when  accused  Dilawar  Singh 
was  about  to  hit  the  target  and  a  9  volt  battery. 

533.  As  far  as  the  recovery  of  the  car  from  the 

spot  is  concerned,  this  aspect  is  not  seriously 
contested  by  the  defence  counsels  but  it  was 
alleged  that  even  if  it  is  presumed  that  this  car 
was  recovered  from  the  spot,  there  is  no  cogent 
evidence  on  the  file  to  link  it  with  the  blast  and 
to  prove  that  it  was  inspected  on  1.9.1995  by  PW- 
178,  in  the  presence  of  PW-241,  Surinder  Pal,  DSP, 
CBI  and  the  alleged  chance  prints  were  lifted  from 
it  and  then  compared  and  found  to  be  of  accused 
Lakhwinder   Singh  and  Balwant   Singh,    as   the  reports 


509 


of  the  experts  in  this  regard  are  not  admissible  in 
evidence . 

534.  Even  otherwise,  there  is  sufficient 
evidence  on  the  file,  which  proves  that  as  stated 
by  PW-240,  the  car,  Ex.P76  was  found  abandoned  near 
the  scene  of  crime  and  it  was  taken  into  possession 
by  PW-240  as  per  the  memo,  Ex.P-177/6,  along  with 
the  bunch  of  keys,  Article  P-204.  During  his  cross 
examination,  he  has  categorically  stated  that  he 
touched  the  body  of  the  car  and  came  to  know  that 
it  is  freshly  painted  as  the  paint  was  not  still 
dried  which  forced  him  think  that  it  has  some 
connection  with  the  blast. 

535.  At  the  same  time,  the  prosecution  has 
placed  on  the  file  two  photographs  of  this  car, 
Ex.PW-119/69  and  70,  which  were  duly  identified  by 
PW-51,  Surinder  Kumar  painter,  who  has  repainted  it 
into  white  colour,  as  well  as  PW-50,  Tarlok  Nath 
painter,  who  had  painted  the  number  plates  of  this 
car  mark  QQQ  and  PPP.  PW-119,  who  has  proved  the 
taking  of  photographs,  has  not  been  cross  examined 
on  this  aspect,  which  further  shows  that  the 
recovery  of  the  car  is  duly  established  on  record 
and  there  is  nothing  to  disbelieve  the  same. 

536.  Once,  the  recovery  of  the  car,  Ex.P-76 
from  the  spot  is  proved,  let  us  come  to  the  next 
aspect    as    to    the    inspection    of    this    car    by  the 


510 


experts.  To  decide  the  controversy  as  to  the 
inspection  of  the  car,  the  testimony  of  PW-178, 
S.K.Chadha,  Senior  Scientific  Officer  of  the  CFSL, 
is  very  material.  This  witness  is  an  expert  of 
Finger  Print  Examination,  having  experience  of  18 
years  in  this  field. 

537.  When  he  (PW-178)  stepped  into  the  witness 
box,  he  deposed  that  as  per  the  directions  of  the 
CBI  authorities,  he  inspected  the  scene  of  crime  as 
well  as  the  car,  Ex.P-76,  as  per  memo  Ex.PW-178/1, 
which  was  prepared  by  DSP,  Surinder  Pal  Singh.  He 
categorically  deposed  that  Shri  Gautam  Ram, 
photographer  of  CFSL  took  the  photographs  of  all 
the  available  Chance  Finger  prints  on  the  car,  from 
various  angles  under  his  supervision  from  all 
available  sources  on  Car  and  a  memo,  Ex.PW-178/2 
was  prepared  in  this  regard. 

538.  He  further  deposed  that  the  rear  view 
mirror  of  the  car  was  removed  and  taken  into 
possession  for  examination  in  the  lab  and 
thereafter,  after  receiving  the  specimen  finger 
prints  of  all  the  accused  persons  of  this  case,  he 
compared  the  same  with  the  chance  finger  prints 
lifted  from  the  car  and  rear  view  mirror  and 
examined  the  same  and  as  per  his  report  Ex.PW-178/5 
along  with  the  annexures,  Ex.PW-178/6  and  Ex.PW- 
178/7,  he  found  that  one  of  the  chance  finger 
prints,    mark    Q-4    developed    and    photographed  from 


511 


rear  view  mirror   of  the 
specimen       left  thumb 
Lakhwinder    Singh  marked 
identified  the  rear  view 


car  is  identical  with  the 
impression  of  accused 
as    LTS-24.     He    has  also 

mirror  as  article,  P-155. 


539.  He  further  deposed  that  on  16.1.1996  he 
took  the  specimen  finger  prints  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh  on  six  sheets,  Ex.PW-178/8  to  Ex . PW-178/13, 
in  the  Office  of  CBI,New  Delhi  and  he  also 
identified  accused  Balwant  Singh  in  the  court  and 
deposed  that  after  enlarging  the  photographs  of  the 
specimen  and  the  chance  finger  prints,  one  of  the 
chance  finger  print  Q-15  was  found  to  be  identical 
with  the  specimen  finger  print  of  Balwant  Singh  as 
per  his  report  Ex.PW-178/14  coupled  with  the 
reasons  Ex. PW-178/16 . 

540.  The  learned  defence  counsel  while 
challenging  the  factum  of  inspection  by  this 
witness  alleged  that  there  is  a  cutting  on  the  memo 
Ex.PW178/l,  which  shows  that  the  digit  12  has  been 
changed  from  the  original  digit  10  and  this 
interpolation  has  been  made  just  to  wriggle  out 
from  the  fact  that  the  investigations  were  taken 
over  by  the  CBI  only  on  1.9.1995  after  12.00  noon. 

541.  However,  after  considering  the  rival 
contentions  of  both  the  parties  on  this  aspect,  it 
comes  out  that  this  plea  has  no  relevancy  because 
as   stated  earlier  even  if  it   is  presumed  that  this 


512 


witness  has  examined  the  car  even  before  taking 
over  the  investigation  by  the  CBI,  it  makes  no 
difference.  At  the  same  time,  the  Govt  of  Punjab 
has  ordered  the  CBI  investigations  on  the  evening 
of  31.8.1995  itself.  At  the  same  time,  PW-241,  DSP 
Surinder  Pal  has  also  deposed  that  the  Car  was 
inspected  in  the  Police  Station,  North,  in  the 
presence  of  PW-178  and  the  proceedings  were 
completed  by  2.30  p.m. 

542.  The  other  plea  of  learned  defence  counsel 
is  that  PW-248,  Mr . S . K . Saxena,  Chief  Investigating 
Officer  has  admitted  that  he  came  to  know  about  the 
existence  of  Car  only  after  12.30  p.m  and  if  it  was 
so,  there  was  no  guestion  of  asking  Surinder  Pal, 
DSP  or  Mr .  S .  K .  Chadha  to  inspect  the  same  and  this 
shows  that  the  entire  story  of  inspection  is 
fabricated  specially  when  no  DDR  has  been  recorded 
in  Police  Station  regarding  the  visit  of  the  Expert 
and  the  DSP,  as  admitted  by  PW-240  and  as  reguired 
under  the  rules  and  this  aspect  also  falsify  the 
inspection  report. 

543.  However,  after  going  through  the  testimony 
of  this  witness  and  other  witnesses,  it  comes  out 
that  this  plea  of  learned  defence  counsel  is 
totally  misconceived  as  PW-248  has  never  admitted 
that  DSP  Surinder  Pal  inspected  the  Car  on  his 
direction.  On  the  contrary,  PW-241,  Surinder  Pal, 
DSP  has   categorically  stated  that  he   inspected  the 


513 


Car  as  per  the  directions  of  the  Superior  Officers 
and  even  S.N.Saxena  was  not  the  Chief  Investigating 
Officer  at  that  time. 

544.  It  is  categorically  stated  by  PW-240, 
Nanha  Ram,  SHO  that  after  taking  the  car  into 
possession,  he  took  it  to  the  Police  Station,  North 
and  kept  it  there.  It  is  also  proved  that  when  the 
investigations  of  this  case  were  taken  over  by  the 
CBI,  this  car  was  inspected  on  1.9.1995  and 
thereafter  it  remained  parked  in  Police  Station 
North  itself.  Since  this  car  was  never  removed  from 
the  Police  Station,  as  such  there  was  no  need  to 
make  any  entries  in  register  no. 19  known  as 
malkhana  register.  Even,  the  CBI  officials  were  not 
obliged  to  make  the  entries  in  the  Police  Station 
as  to  their  inspection  as  this  aspect  was  having  no 
concerned  with  the  working  of  the  Police  Station, 
once  the  investigations  were  taken  over  by  the  CBI . 

545.  The  next  plea  of  learned  defence  counsel 
is  that  the  presence  of  PW-190,  ASI  Ranjit  Singh 
during  the  inspection  proceedings  stands  belied 
from  the  copy  of  DDR  no.  12  dated  1.9.1995  vide 
which,  he  left  the  Police  Station  at  1.15  p.m.,  and 
reached  back  at  8.25  p.m.,  as  is  recorded  in  DDR 
no.  25  of  the  same  day.  Thus,  his  presence  during 
the  inspection  from  12.00  noon  to  2.30  p.m.  is 
highly  doubtful.  However,  this  plea  is  also 
baseless   because    even    if    it    is    presumed   that  ASI 


514 


Ranjit  Singh  left  the  Police  Station  and  worst  to 
worst,  he  was  not  present  till  the  completion  of 
the  inspection  proceedings,  it  makes  no  difference 
because  the  only  role  of  ASI  Ranjit  Singh  was  to 
help  the  CBI  officials,  if  required  during  the 
inspection . 

546.  Even  ASI  Ranjit  Singh  was  not  cross 
examined  by  the  learned  defence  counsel  on  this 
aspect  and  as  to  how  his  signatures  are  on  the 
inspection  memo.  It  is  also  possible  that  although 
the  entry  was  made  in  the  DDR  but  he  actually  did 
not  leave  the  Police  Station  till  inspection  was 
completed  specially  when  he  has  to  leave  the  Police 
station  for  patrolling  purpose  only. 

547.  Similarly,  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  that  PW-165  admitted  that  Shri  S.K.Chadha 
remained  at  the  spot  throughout  the  day  of  1.9.1995 
and  thus  not  visited  the  Police  Station  is  also 
misconceived  as  PW-165  has  also  clarified  that 
although  he  remained  at  the  spot  throughout  the  day 
but  he  can  not  tell  whether  the  other  experts  also 
remained  there  or  gone  else  where. 

548.  One  more  related  argument  as  to  the 
search  of  the  Car,  Ex.P76  put  forward  by  the 
defence  counsel  was  that  it  is  admitted  case  of  PW- 
240,  Nanha  Ram  that  various  telephone  numbers  of 
Delhi  and  Jaipur  written  on  piece  of  paper  and  some 


515 


cash  memos  of  petrol,  a  parking  slip,  were  also 
recovered  from  the  car  but  no  verification  or 
investigations  have  been  made  by  the  Police  in  this 
regard.  However,  this  plea  is  also  misconceived 
because  admittedly  all  these  papers  were  of  the 
month  of  February,  1995  or  prior  to  that,  when  the 
factum  of  conspiracy  of  this  case  was  not  even 
conceived  specially,  when  this  car  was  sold  to  the 
accused  persons  only  on  20.8.1995.  Similarly,  the 
non-examination  of  the  sample  of  soil  etc.  taken 
from  the  car  has  also  no  bearing  on  the  merits  of 
the  case. 


549.  Thus,     there    is    nothing    on    the    file  to 

disbelieve  the  recovery  of  the  car,  Ex.P-76  from 
the  scene  of  the  crime  and  its  inspection  by  PW-178 
and  PW-241  and  taking  of  the  chance  finger  prints. 
As  far  as  the  evidentiary  value  of  the  finger  print 
reports  is  concerned, it  will  be  considered  while 
discussing  the  case  of  accused  persons 
individually . 


550.  As    far   as    the    link   of    this    car   with  the 

accused  persons  and  leading  to  unearth  of  the 
conspiracy  is  concerned,  as  per  the  prosecution 
after  the  recovery  of  the  car  from  the  spot  and  its 
inspection  and  in  view  of  the  testimony  of  PW-99, 
Chamkaur  Singh,  it  was  found  that  deceased  Dilawar 
Singh  had  caused  this  bomb  blast  by  working  as 
suicide  bomber  and  later  on  PW-51,    Surinder  Sharma, 


516 


painter,  disclosed  that  he  had  re-painted  the  Car, 
Ex.P76  on  the  asking  of  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
who  was  already  known  to  him  and  he  also  named 
accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  as  the  persons,  who  used  to  visit  him  in 
connection  with  the  re-painting  of  the  car  and 
also  named  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @  Maulla,  who  once 
come  with  the  accused  persons  to  his  shop. 

551.  Thereafter  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and 
Gurmeet  Singh  were  arrested  and  the  entire 
conspiracy  was  unearthed  and  led  to  the  arrest  of 
remaining  accused  persons,  which  ultimately  leads 
to  know  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the 
conspiracy  till  its  execution,  as  set  out  above  in 
the  confessions  of  the  three  accused  persons. 
Accordingly,  during  the  investigation,  the  CBI 
investigated  all  those  aspects  and  collected 
evidence  to  prove  the  role  of  each  and  every 
accused  persons,  performed  by  them  for  the  due 
execution  of  the  conspiracy. 

552.  It  is  already  held  while,  taking  the 
motive  theory  that  initially  the  conspiracy  of  this 
case  was  hatched  by  accused  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal 
Singh,  with  the  help  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  it  is  alleged  by  the  prosecution  that  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  came  in  contact  with  accused 
Balwant  Singh,  with  the  intervention  of  accused 
Harjit  Singh  @  Mini  Bawa  and  they  planned  to  kill 
Beant    Singh    with    the    help    of    a    human    bomb  and 


517 


thereafter    they  executed 
details,     mentioned  above, 
accused  persons  and  various 


this  plan 
after  j 
inputs . 


as  per  the 
oining  other 


553.  Keeping      into      consideration      the  above 

background,  let  us  scan  the  evidence  of  the 
prosecution  further,  to  know  how  the  conspiracy  was 
actually  initiated  and  who  were  the  planners  of 
this  conspiracy.  To  know  this  fact,  as  mentioned 
earlier,  there  can  not  be  any  direct  evidence.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  have  to  consider  the  evidence  of 
the  prosecution  cumulatively.  Accordingly,  a  resume 
of  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution  shows  that  the 
prosecution  has  relied  upon  the  confessions  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  Shamsher  Singh  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara;  and  the  extra  judicial  confessions  made 
by  some  of  the  accused  persons  including  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  Balwant  Singh,  Gurmeet  Singh, 
Shamsher  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  before 
different  witnesses;  the  act  and  conduct  of  the 
accused  persons  prior  to  and  after  the  commission 
of  this  crime  including  the  evidence  showing 
preparations  made  by  the  accused  for  success  of 
conspiracy  and  discovery  of  all  those  places  and 
their  identification;  and  other  circumstantial 
evidence  gathered  from  the  spot  and  different 
witnesses,  who  saw  different  accused  persons  at  the 
scene  of  crime  before  the  crime  or  after  the  crime 
when  they  tried  to  evade  arrest;  to  bring  home  the 
factum  of  conspiracy. 


518 


Vol.  Ill 


Confessions  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
Shamsher  Singh;  making  of  the  same 
and  its  relevancy  to  the  conspiracy 
specially  in  reference  to  Section  10 
and  30  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act. 

554.  As  far  as  the  confessions  are  concerned, 
first  of  all,  let  us  take  the  confession  of  accused 
Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW65/F,  which  was  recorded  by  PW- 
65.  However,  as  held  above,  this  accused  has 
admitted  and  confessed  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh 
with  the  help  of  deceased  accused  Dilawar  Singh  but 
he  alleged  that  he  never  made  any  confession 
regarding  the  factum  of  conspiracy  and  how  it  was 
executed  as  alleged  by  the  prosecution.  In  this 
regard  on  20.2.1996,  he  moved  an  application 
retracting  from  his  confession,  Ex.PW65/F  alleging 
that  his  alleged  confession  is  false  and  never  made 
by  him.  As  such,  let  us  decide  this  controversy  to 
know,  whether  the  offence  committed  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh  and  his  co-accused  Dilawar  Singh  was 
in  the  manner  and  as  per  the  conspiracy  pointed  out 
by  him  in  his  confession,  Ex.PW65/F. 

555.  The  second  confession  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  is  the  confession  of  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  since  proclaimed  offender.  It  will  be 
apposite  to  mention  over  here  that  after   filing  of 


519 


the  charge  sheet,  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  along 
with  remaining  accused  persons,  was  charge  sheeted 
and  the  trial  was  started  against  him  along  with 
other  accused  persons  and  some  evidence  was  also 
recorded  including  the  statement  of  PW-86,  Balbir 
Singh,  then  Special  Judicial  Magistrate,  CBI, 
Patiala.  However,  after  recording  of  some  evidence, 
this  accused  escaped  from  the  Jail  and  could  not  be 
arrested  so  far  and  ultimately,  he  was  declared  as 
proclaimed  offender. 

556.  Learned  defence  counsel  submitted  that  as 
per  the  law  laid  down  in  State  of  Tamilnadu  Vs. 
Nalini  etc,  AIR  1999,   Supreme  Court,   page  2640,  as 

reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Ishar  Singh 
Vs.  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  AIR,  2004,  Supreme 
Court,  page  3030,  the  confession  of  this  accused 
can  not  be  considered  for  any  purpose  whatsoever  as 
far  as  the  present  trial  is  concerned,  either  to 
decide  the  role  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  or  the 
role  of  the  remaining  accused  persons,  even  under 
the  provision  of  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act 
because  this  accused  is  no  more  an  accused  facing 
trial  in  this  case  and  if  it  is  so,  his 
confessional  statement  can  not  be  considered  for 
any  purpose  whatsoever  as  per  the  law  laid  down  in 
the  above  mentioned  cases. 

557.  However,  this  question  was  replied  by  the 
learned    Public    Prosecutor,     saying    that    the  point 


520 


raised  by  learned  defence  counsels  is  not  tenable 
in  the  present  trial  because  the  point  in  question 
was  decided  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  while 
deciding  the  cases  under  the  provisions  of  TADA  Act 
and  under  the  provisions  of  Section  15(1)  of  the 
TADA  Act,  1987,  because  Section  15  sub-section  (1) 
provides  that  confessions  of  the  maker  can  be 
considered  against  the  co-accused  or  the  abetter 
and  conspirator  only  if  both  the  accused  making  the 
confession  and  co-accused  facing  trial  in  the  same 
trial.  Whereas,  this  point  is  irrelevant  where  the 
case  is  otherwise  tried  and  this  question  was  also 
considered  in  State  of  Tamilnadu  Vs.  Nalini ' s  case 
known  as  Rajiv  Gandhi  murder  trial,  where  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that  the  joint  trial  of  the 
maker  of  the  confession  and  the  co-accused/co- 
conspirator is  a  pre-condition  to  invoke  the 
presumption  available  under  Section  15  (1)  of  the 
TADA  Act.  But  in  other  cases,  the  provisions  of 
Section  30  read  with  section  10  will  apply  to  rely 
upon  the  confession  of  an  accused  against  the  co- 
accused  . 


558.  Accordingly    after    considering    the  rival 

contention  of  both  the  parties  on  this  aspect,  it 
comes  out  that  the  plea  raised  by  learned  defence 
counsel  is  not  tenable  as  stated  by  learned  Public 
Prosecutor.  After  going  through  the  principle  laid 
down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  both  the 
authorities    relied    upon,     it    comes    out    that  this 


521 


principle  was  laid  down  only  for  those  cases  where 
the  confession  of  the  accused  is  as  per  the 
provisions  of  Section  15  of  the  TADA  Act  and  not 
otherwise . 

55  9.  In    State    of   Tamilnadu   Vs.    Nalini '  s  case 

Supra,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court,  while  considering 
this  aspect,  held  that  Section  10  of  the  Evidence 
Act  is  a  special  provision  in  order  to  deal  with 
dangerous  combination.  Normal  rule  of  evidence  that 
prevents  the  statement  of  one  accused  being  used 
against  another  u/s  30  of  the  Evidence  Act,  does 
not  apply  in  the  trial  of  conspiracy  in  view  of 
Section  10  of  the  Act.  The  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
further  held  that  there  is  difference  between 
Section  30  of  Indian  Evidence  Act  and  Section  15(1) 
of  TADA  Act  and  the  main  difference  pointed  out  by 
learned  Apex  Court  is  that  in  case  under  Section 
15(1)  of  the  TADA  Act,  the  maker  of  the  confession 
and  the  other  accused  should  be  tried  jointly  for 
the  same  offence  as  is  clear  from  the  word 
'charged'  &  'tried'  together  used  in  this  section, 
whereas  in  case  of  Section  30  of  the  Indian 
Evidence  Act,  it  is  not  required  that  the  joint 
trial  should  be  for  the  same  offence. 

560.  Even  in  Haroon  Haji  Abdullah  Vs.   State  of 

Maharashta  AIR  1988  S.C.  832,  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  while  taking  the  confession  of  an  accused, 
who    had   died   during    the    trial,    against    the  other 


522 


accused  persons,  held  that  no  doubt  the  confession 
of  a  person,  who  is  dead  is  not  admissible  in 
evidence  under  section  30  which  insists  upon  a 
joint  trial  but  such  a  statement  becomes  relevant 
under  section  30  read  with  section  32  (3)  of  the 
Evidence  Act.  Similarly  in  the  present  case, 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  is  declared  as  proclaimed 
offender  as  his  whereabouts  are  not  traceable  and 
as  such  his  confession  is  on  the  footing  as  a 
confession  of  a  person  who  is  not  available 
specially  when  he  was  charge  sheeted  along  with 
other  co-accused  and  faced  trial  for  sufficient 
long  time  and  even  the  evidence  regarding  making  of 
confession  by  this  accused  in  the  form  of  testimony 
of  PW-86,  was  recorded  in  his  presence  and  an 
opportunity  of  cross  examination  was  granted. 

561.  At     the     same     time,     Section     30     of  the 

Evidence  Act  gives  a  discretion  to  the  court  to 
take  into  consideration  the  confession  against  the 
maker  as  well  as  against  the  co-accused.  Whereas 
u/s  15(1)  of  the  TADA  Act,  the  confession  of  the 
accused  recorded  thereunder  shall  be  admissible  in 
the  trial  of  the  maker  of  the  confession  as  well  as 
against  the  co-accused,  provided  the  co-accused, 
abettor  or  conspirator,  if  charged  and  tried  with 
the  accused  for  the  same  case.  Although,  both  the 
provisions  required  joint  trial  of  the  accused 
making  confession  and  the  co-accused.  Thus  the  plea 
of      learned      defence      counsel      to      exclude  the 


523 


confession  of  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  is  not  tenable. 

562.  Similarly  in  the  present  case,  the  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was  charge  sheeted  along  with 
remaining  accused  persons  and  he  was  charged  and 
tried  together  and  even  if  he  has  been  absconded 
and  declared  a  proclaimed  offender,  his  confession 
can  be  considered  for  assessing  his  role  in  the 
conspiracy  as  well  as  the  role  of  the  remaining 
accused  persons  as  per  the  provisions  of  Section  30 
and  Section  10  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act.  As  such 
let  us  consider  the  confession  of  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  and  its  legality  and  admissibility. 

563.  The  third  confession  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  is  the  confession  of  accused  Shamsher 
Singh  as  proved  by  PW-103,  Dinesh  Kumar  Sharma, 
then  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala  House  Courts, 
New  Delhi.  Although  the  learned  defence  counsel  has 
raised  two  technical  objections  regarding  recording 
of  confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  after 
filing  of  the  first  charge  sheet  and  during  the 
pendency  of  the  trial  against  him  but  this  aspect 
will  be  considered  while  taking  the  case  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  individually.  At  present,  we  are 
concerned  only  with  the  aspect  as  to  whether  the 
confession  made  by  the  accused  Shamsher  Singh  is 
true  and  voluntarily  made  as  per  the  requirements 
of  the  law  and  the  guidelines  laid  down  by  the 
Hon'ble   Apex   Court    in   different    cases    relied  upon 


524 


by  both  the  parties. 


564.  Before      taking      the      evidence      of  the 

prosecution  on  this  point,  let  us  consider  the 
legal  position  on  the  point  of  proof  of  confession, 
its  relevancy  and  admissibility  against  the  maker 
of  the  same  and  against  the  co-accused  persons  as 
per  the  provisions  of  Section  30  of  the  Indian 
Evidence  Act  read  with  Section  10  of  the  Indian 
Evidence  Act. 


565.  Before   we   turn   our   attention   to   the  more 

specific  aspects  of  confessions,  we  should  have  a 
conspectus  of  the  law  on  the  evidentiary  value  of 
confessions,  which  are  retracted,  which  is  a 
general  feature  in  our  country  and  elsewhere.  This 
question  was  also  considered  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  in  State  Vs.  Navjot  Sandhu  and  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  held  that: 


"Under  the  general  law  of  the  land  as 
reflected  in  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,  no 
confession  made  to  a  police  officer  can  be 
proved  against  an  accused.  'Confessions  - 
which  is  a  terminology  used  in  criminal 
law  is  a  species  of  'admissions'  as 
defined  in  Section  17  of  the  Indian 
Evidence  Act.  An  admission  is  a  statement 
-  oral  or  documentary  which  enables  the 
court  to  draw  an  inference  as  to  any  fact 
in  issue  or  relevant  fact.  It  is  trite  to 
say  that  every  confession  must  necessarily 
be  an  admission,  but,  every  admission  does 
not  necessarily  amount  to  a  confession. 
While      Sections      17      to      23      deal  with 


525 


admissions,  the  law  as  to  confessions  is 
embodied  in  Sections  24  to  30  of  the 
Evidence  Act.  Section  25  bars  proof  of  a 
confession  made  to  a  police  officer. 
Section  26  goes  a  step  further  and 
prohibits  proof  of  confession  made  by  any 
person  while  he  is  in  the  custody  of  a 
police  officer,  unless  it  be  made  in  the 
immediate  presence  of  a  Magistrate. 
Section  24  lays  down  the  obvious  rule  that 
a  confession  made  under  any  inducement, 
threat  or  promise  becomes  irrelevant  in  a 
criminal  proceeding.  Such  inducement, 
threat  or  promise  need  not  be  proved  to 
the  hilt.  If  it  appears  to  the  court  that 
the  making  of  the  confession  was  caused  by 
any  inducement,  threat  or  promise 
proceeding  from  a  person  in  authority,  the 
confession  is  liable  to  be  excluded  from 
evidence.  The  expression  appears  connotes 
that  the  court  need  not  go  to  the  extent 
of  holding  that  the  threat  etc  has  in  fact 
been  proved.  If  the  facts  and 
circumstances  emerging  from  the  evidence 
adduced  make  it  reasonably  probable  that 
the  confession  could  be  the  result  of 
threat,  inducement  or  pressure,  the  court 
will  refrain  from  acting  on  such 
confession,  even  if  it  be  a  confession 
made  to  a  Magistrate  or  a  person  other 
than  police  officer.  Confessions  leading 
to  discovery  of  fact  which  is  dealt  with 
under  Section  27  is  an  exception  to  the 
rule  of  exclusion  of  confession  made  by  an 
accused  in  the  custody  of  a  Police 
Officer.  Consideration  of  a  proved 
confession  affecting  the  person  making  it 
as  well  as  the  co-accused  is  provided  for 
by  Section  30.  Briefly  and  broadly,  this 
is  the  scheme  of  the  law  of  evidence  vis  a 
vis  confessions.  The  allied  provision 
which  needs  to  be  noticed  at  this  juncture 
is  Section  162  of  the  Cr.P.C.  It  prohibits 
the  use  of  any  statement  made  by  any 
person   to    a   police    officer    in   the  course 


526 


of  investigation  for  any  purpose  at  any 
enquiry  or  trial  in  respect  of  any  offence 
under  investigation.  However,  it  can  be 
used  to  a  limited  extent  to  contradict  a 
witness  as  provided  for  by  Section  145  of 
the  Evidence  Act.  Sub  Section  (2)  of 
Section  162  makes  it  explicit  that  the 
embargo  laid  down  in  the  Section  shall  not 
be  deemed  to  apply  to  any  statement 
falling  within  clause  (1)  of  Section  32  or 
to  affect  the  provisions  of  Section  27  of 
the  Evidence  Act . 

566.  In       the       Privy       Council       decision  of 

P.Narayana  Swami  Vs.  Emperor  (AIR  1939  PC  47)  Lord 
Atin  elucidated  the  meaning  and  purport  of  the 
expression   'confession'    in  the  following  words: 


"A  confession  must  either  admit  in  terms 
the  offence,  or  at  any  rate  substantially 
all  the  facts  which  constitute  the 
offence.  An  admission  of  a  gravely 
incriminating  fact,  even  a  conclusively 
incriminating  fact  is  not  of  itself  a 
confession . 


Confessions  are  considered  highly 
reliable  because  no  rational  person  would 
make  admission  against  his  interest  unless 
prompted  by  his  conscience  to  tell  the 
truth.  "Deliberate         and  voluntary 

confessions  of  guilt.  If  clearly  proved 
are  among  the  most  effectual  proofs  in 
law".  (Vide  Taylor's  Treatise  on  the  Law 
of  Evidence  Col. I)  .  However  before  acting 
upon  a  confession  the  court  must  be 
satisfied  that  it  was  freely  and 
voluntarily  made.  A  confession  by  hope  or 
promise  of  advantage,  reward  or  immunity 
or  by  force  or  by  fear  induced  by  violence 
or   threats   of  violence   can   not  constitute 


527 


evidence  against  the  maker  of  confession. 
The  confession  should  have  been  made  with 
full  knowledge  of  the  nature  and 
conseguences  of  the  confession.  If  any 
reasonable  doubt  is  entertained  by  the 
court  that  these  ingredients  are  not 
satisfied,  the  court  should  eschew  the 
confession  from  consideration.  So  also  the 
authority  recording  the  confession  be  it  a 
Magistrate  or  some  other  statutory 
functionary  at  the  pre-trial  stage,  must 
address  himself  to  the  issue  whether  the 
accused  has  come  forward  to  make  the 
confession  in  an  atmosphere  free  from 
fear,  duress  or  hope  of  some  advantage  or 
reward  induced  by  the  persons  in 
authority.  Recognizing  the  stark  reality 
of  the  accused  being  enveloped  in  a  state 
of  fear  and  panic,  anxiety  and  despair 
while  in  police  custody,  the  Indian 
Evidence  Act  has  excluded  the 
admissibility  of  a  confession  made  to  the 
police  officer. 

Section  164  of  Cr.P.C  is  a  salutary 
provision  which  lays  down  certain 
precautionary  rules  to  be  followed  by  the 
Magistrate  recording  a  confession  so  as  to 
ensure  the  voluntariness  of  the  confession 
and  the  accused  being  placed  in  a 
situation  free  from  threat  or  influence  of 
the  police." 

567.  As  to  what  should  be  the  legal  approach  of 

the  Court  called  upon  to  convict  a  person  primarily 
in  the  light  of  the  confession  or  a  retracted 
confession  has  been  succinctly  summarized  in  Bharat 
Vs.  State  of  UP  (1971)  (3)  SCC  950),  where  it  was 
observed  thus: 


528 


"Confessions  can  be  acted  upon  if  the 
court  is  satisfied  that  they  are  voluntary 
and  that  they  are  true.  They  voluntary 
nature  of  the  confession  depends  upon 
whether  there  was  any  threat,  inducement 
or  promise  and  its  truth  is  judged  in  the 
context  of  the  entire  prosecution  case. 
The  confession  must  fit  into  the  proved 
facts  and  not  run  counter  to  them.  When 
the  voluntary  character  of  the  confession 
and  its  truth  are  accepted,  it  is  safe  to 
rely  on  it.  Indeed  a  confession,  if  it  is 
voluntary  and  true  and  not  made  under  any 
inducement  or  threat  or  promise,  is  the 
most  patent  piece  of  evidence  against  the 
maker.  Retracted  confession,  however 
stands  on  a  slightly  different  footing.  As 
the  Privy  Council  once  stated,  in  India  it 
is  the  rule  to  find  a  confession  and  to 
find  it  retracted  later.  A  court  may  take 
into  account  the  retracted  confession,  but 
it  must  look  for  the  reasons  for  the 
making  of  the  confession  as  well  as  for 
its  retraction,  and  must  weigh  the  two  to 
determine  whether  the  retraction  affects 
the  voluntary  nature  of  the  confession  or 
not.  If  the  court  is  satisfied  that  it 
was  retracted  because  of  an  after  thought 
or  advice,  the  retraction  may  not  weigh 
with  the  court  if  the  general  facts  proved 
in  the  case  and  the  tenor  of  the 
confession  as  made  and  the  circumstances 
of  its  making  and  withdrawal  warrant  its 
user.  All  the  same,  the  courts  do  not  act 
upon  the  retracted  confession  without 
finding  assurance  from  some  other  sources 
as  to  the  guilt  of  the  accused.  Therefore, 
it  can  be  stated  that  a  true  confessions 
made  voluntarily  may  be  acted  upon  with 
slight  evidence  to  corroborate  it, but  a 
retracted  confession  reguires  the  general 
assurance  that  the  retraction  was  an  after 
thought  and  that  the  earlier  statement  was 
true.  This  was  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court     in  an  earlier  case  reported  in 


529 


Subramania  Gopuinden  Vs.  The  State  of 
Madras    (1958  SCR  428) .  " 

568.  Similarly      the      Hon'ble     Apex      Court  in 
Haroom  Hazi  Abdulla  Vs.    State  of  Maharashtra  (1968 
(2),   reiterated  that : - 

"confession  must  be  looked  upon  with 
greater  concern  unless  the  reasons  given 
for  having  made  it  in  the  first  instance 
are  on  the  face  of  them  false.  "There  was 
a  further  observation  in  the  same 
paragraph  that  retracted  confession  is  a 
weak  link  against  the  maker  and  more  so 
against  a  co-accused.  With  great  respect 
to  the  eminent  Judge,  the  "weak  link 
against  the  maker"  goes  counter  must  be 
viewed  in  the  context  of  the  fact  that  the 
Court  was  concentrating  on  the  confession 
of  the  co-accused  rather  than  the 
evidentiary  value  of  the  retracted 
confession  against  the  maker." 

569.  Dealing  with  retracted  confession,  a  four- 
Judges  Bench  of  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court,  in  Pyare 
Lai  Vs.  State  of  Assam  (AIR  1957  SC  216),  clarified 
the  legal  position  thus: 


"A  retracted  confession  may  form  the 
legal  basis  of  a  conviction  if  the  court 
is  satisfied  that  it  was  true  and  was 
voluntarily  made.  But  it  has  been  held 
that  a  court  shall  not  base  a  conviction 
on  such         a  confession  without 

corroboration.  It  is  not  a  rule  of  law, 
but  is  only  rule  of  prudence.  It  can  not 
even  be  laid  down  as  an  inflexible  rule 
of  practice  or  prudence  that  under  no 
circumstances     such    a    conviction    can  be 


530 


made  without  corroboration,  for  a  court 
may,  in  a  particular  case, be  convicted  of 
the  absolute  truth  of  a  confession  and 
prepared  to  act  upon  it  without 
corroboration;  but  it  may  be  laid  down  as 
a  general  rule  of  practice  that  it  is 
unsafe  to  rely  upon  a  confession,  much 
less  on  a  retracted  confession,  unless 
the  court  is  satisfied  that  the  retracted 
confession  is  true  and  voluntarily  made 
and  has  been  corroborated  in  material 
particulars . " 

570.  As  to  the  extent  of  corroboration 
required,  it  was  observed  in  Subramania  Gounden's 
case  (1958  SCR  428)  that  each  and  every 
circumstance  mentioned  in  the  retracted  confession 
regarding  the  complicity  of  the  maker  need  not  be 
separately  and  independently  corroborated.  The 
Hon'ble  Apex  Coure  held  that: 

"It  would  be  sufficient  in  our  opinion 
that  the  general  trend  of  the 
confession  is  substantiated  by  some 
evidence  which  would  tally  with  what 
is  contained  in  the  confession." 

571.  Then  we  have  the  case  of  Shankaria  Vs. 
State  of  Rajasthan  (1978  (3)  SCC  435)  decided  by  a 
three  Judges  Bench.  And  the  Hon'ble  Superme  Court 
settled  the  twin  tests  to  be  applied  to  evaluate  a 
confession  and  held  as  follows: 

1.  Whether  the  confession  was  perfectly 
voluntary  and 


531 


2.       If      so,  whether 
trustworthy.    The  test 
question    of  applying 
not     arise.     Then  the 
broad   method   by  which 
evaluated . 
And  it  was  said: 


it      is      true  and 
is    not    satisfied  the 
the    second    test  does 
Court     indicated  one 
a    confession    can  be 


"Satisfaction  of  the  first  test  is  a  sine 
qua  non  for  its  admissibility  in  evidence. 
If  the  confession  appears  to  the  Court  to 
have  been  caused  by  any  inducement,  threat 
or  promise  such  as  is  mentioned  in  Section 
24,  Evidence  Act,  it  must  be  excluded  and 
rejected  brevi  manu .  In  such  a  case,  the 
question  of  proceeding  further  to  apply 
the  second  test  ,  does  not  arise.  If  the 
first  test  is  satisfied,  the  Court  must, 
before  acting  upon  the  confession  reach 
the  finding  that  what  is  stated  therein  is 
true  and  reliable.  For  judging  the 
reliability  of  such  a  confession,  or  for 
that  matter  of  any  substantive  pice  of 
evidence,  there  is  no  rigid  canon  of 
universal  application.  Even  so,  one  broad 
method  which  may  be  useful  in  most  cases 
for  evaluating  a  confession  may  be 
indicated.  The  Court  should  carefully 
examine  for  confession  and  compare  it  with 
the  rest  of  the  evidence,  in  the  light  of 
the  surrounding  circumstances  and 
probabilities  of  the  case.  If  on  such 
examination  and  comparison,  the  confession 
appears  to  be  a  probable  catalogue  of 
events  and  naturally  fits  in  with  the  rest 
of  the  evidence  and  the  surrounding 
circumstances,  it  may  be  taken  to  have 
satisfied  the  second  test." 

Similarly    as    to    the    interval    which  the 


532 


court  should  give  to  an  accused  to  think  over 
before  making  a  confession  is  concerned,  the 
Hon'ble    Apex    Court     in    Shankaria ' s    case  (Supra) 

further  held  that: 

"there  is  no  statutory  provision  in 
Section  164,  Cr.P.C  or  elsewhere,  or  to  an 
executive  direction  issued  by  the  Court, 
that  there  should  be  an  interval  of  24 
hours  or  more  between  the  preliminary 
questioning  of  the  accused  and  the 
recording  of  his  confession.  The  condition 
precedent  for  recording  a  confession  by 
the  Magistrate  in  the  course  of  Police 
investigation  is  that  the  Magistrate 
should  not  record  any  confession  unless 
upon  questioning  the  accused  person  making 
it,  he  has  reason  to  believe  that  it  is 
being  made  voluntarily.  How  much  time  for 
reflection  should  be  allowed  to  an  accused 
person  before  recording  his  confession,  is 
a  question  which  depends  on  the 
circumstances  of  each  case.  The  object  of 
giving  such  time  for  reflection  to  the 
accused,  is  to  ensure  that  he  is 
completely  free  from  Police  influence.  If 
immediately  before  the  recording  of  the 
confession,  the  accused  was  in  judicial 
custody  beyond  the  reason  of  the 
investigating  police  for  some  days  then 
such  custody  from  its  very  nature  may 
itself  be  a  factor  dispelling  fear  or 
influence  of  the  police  from  the  mind  of 
the  accused.  In  such  a  case,  it  may  not  be 
necessary  to  send  back  the  accused  person 
for  any  prolonged  period  to  jail  or 
judicial  lock-up." 

573.  The    above    mentioned    principle    was  also 

settled  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Sarwan  Singh 
Vs.    State  of  Punjab,  AIR  1957,   Supreme  Court,  page 


533 


637     wherein  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that 


"It  would  naturally  be  difficult  to  lay 
down  any  hard  and  fast  rule  as  to  the 
time  which  should  be  allowed  to  an 
accused  person  in  any  given  case  before 
recording  his  confession  under  Section 
164.  However,  speaking  generally,  it 
would  be  reasonable  to  insist  upon  giving 
an  accused  person  at  least  24  hours  to 
decide  whether  or  not  he  should  make  a 
confession.  Where  there  may  be  reason  to 
suspect  that  the  accused  has  been 
persuaded  or  coerced  to  make  a 
confession,  even  longer  period  may  have 
to  be  given  to  him  before  his  statement 
is  recorded." 

574.  Similarly     as     to     the     admissibility  of 

retracted  confession  and  its  effect  is  concerned 
the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that: 


"Where  the  accused,  while  retracting  his 
confession,  did  not  say  that  he  was 
tutored  by  police  to  make  the  confession 
but  only  said  that  he  made  it  under 
compulsion  and  threat  and  was  false  and  a 
perusal  of  the  confessional  statement 
would  show  that  prima  facie  there  was 
nothing  improbable  or  unbelievable  in  it; 
that  it  appeared  to  be  a  spontaneous 
account,  studded  with  such  vivid  details 
about  the  manner  of  the  commission  of  the 
crimes  in  guestion,  which  only  the 
perpetrator  of  the  crimes  could  know,  and 
the  confession  received  assurance  in 
several  material  particulars  from 
reliable  independent  evidence,  mainly  of 
circumstantial  character,  held  the 
confession,  coupled  with  the  other 
evidence    on    the    record,     had  unerringly 


534 


and  indubitably  brought  home  the  charges 
to  the  accused." 

575.  Even  in  Paramanand  Pegu  Vs.  State  of 
Assam  (2004  (7)  SCC  779) ,  an  authority  relied  by  by 
learned  defence  counsel,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court, 
while  adverting  to  the  expression  "corroboration  of 
material  particulars"  used  in  Pyare  Lai  Bhargava's 
case  clarified  the  position  thus 

"By  the  use  of  the  expression 
'corroboration  of  material  particulars' 
the  Court  has  not  laid  down  any 
proposition  contrary  to  what  has  been 
clarified  in  Subramania  Goundan  case  as 
regards  the  extent  of  corroboration 
reguired.  The  above  expression  does  not 
imply  that  there  should  be  meticulous 
examination  of  the  entire  material 
particulars.  It  is  enough  that  there  is 
broad  corroboration  in  conformity  wit6h 
the  general  trend  of  the  confession,  as 
pointed  out  in  Subramania  Goundan 
case . " 

576.  The  analysis  of  the  legal  position  in 
paragraphs  18  &  19  is  also  worth  noting: 

"Having  thus  reached  a  finding  as  to  the 
voluntary  nature  of  a  confession,  the 
truth  of  the  confession  should  then  be 
tested  by  the  Court.  The  fact  that  the 
confession  has  been  made  voluntarily,  free 
from  threat  and  inducement,  can  be 
regarded  as  presumptive  evidence  of  its 
truth.  Still,  there  may  be  circumstances 
to  indicate  that  the  confession  can  not  be 
true  wholly  or  partly  in  which  case  it 
loses  much  of  its  evidentiary  value. 


535 


In  order  to  be  assured  of  the 
truth  of  confession,  this  Court,  in  a 
series  of  decisions  has  evolved  a  rule  of 
prudence  that  the  court  should  look  to 
corroboration  from  other  evidence. 
However,  there  need  not  be  corroboration 
in  respect  of  each  and  every  material 
particular.  Broadly,  there  should  be 
corroboration  so  that  the  confession  taken 
as  a  whole  fits  into  the  facts  proved  by 
other  evidence.  In  substance,  the  court 
should  have  assurance  from  all  angles  that 
the  retracted  confession  was,  in  fact, 
voluntary  and  it  must  have  been  true." 

577.  Similarly  in  Alok  Nath  Dutta  Versus  State 

of  West  Bengal   I    (2007)    CCR,    391    (Supreme  Court) , 

again  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  reiterated  the  above 
said  position  in  the  following  words :- 

"Judicial  confession  must  be  recorded  in 
strict  compliance  of  the  provisions  of 
Section  164  of  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Procedure.  While  doing  so,  the  Court  shall 
not  go  by  the  black  letter  of  law  as 
contained  in  the  aforementioned  provision, 
but  must  make  further  probe  so  as  to 
satisfy  itself  that  the  confession  is 
truly  voluntary  and  had  not  been  by  reason 
of  any  inducement,   threat  or  torture. 

The  Courts  while  applying  the  law 
must  give  due  regard  to  its  past 
experience.  The  past  experience  of  the 
Courts  as  also  the  decisions  rendered  by 
the  superior  Courts  should  be  taken  as  a 
wholesom  guide.  We  must  remind  ourselves 
that     despite     the     fact     that  procedural 


536 


safeguards  contained  in  Section  164  of  the 
Cr.P.C  may  be  satisfied, but  the  courts 
must  look  for  truthfulness  and 
voluntariness  thereof.  It  must,  however, be 
remembered  that  it  may  be  retracted 
subsequently.  The  Court  must,  thus,  take 
adequate  precaution.  Affirmative 

indication  of  external  pressure  will 
render  the  retracted  confession  nugatory 
in  effect.  The  Court  must  play  a  proactive 
role  in  unearthing  objective  evidence 
forming  the  backdrop  of  retraction  and 
later  the  examination  of  such  evidence  of 
retraction.  However  in  cases  where  none 
exists,  the  Court  must  give  the  benefit  of 
doubt  to  the  accused.  Where  there  is  no 
objective  material  available  for  verifying 
the  conditions  in  which  the  confession  was 
retracted,  the  spirit  of  Section  24  of  the 
Evidence  Act  (irrelevance  of  confession 
caused  by  inducement)  may  be  extended  to 
retracted         confession.  An  inverse 

presumption  must  be  drawn  from  absence  of 
materials . 

In  case  of  retracted  confession,  the 
Courts  while  arriving  at  a  finding  of 
guilt  would  not  ordinarily  rely  solely 
thereupon  and  would  look  forward,  for 
corroboration  of  material  particulars. 
Such  corroboration  must  not  be  referable 
in  nature.  Such  corroboration  must  be 
independent  and  conclusive  in  nature. 

Whatever  be  the  terminology  used,  one 
rule  is  also  certain  that  no  judgment  of 
conviction  shall  be  passed  on  an 
uncorroborated  retracted  confession.  The 
Court  shall  consider  the  materials  on 
record  objectively  in  regard  to  the 
reasons  for  retraction.  It  must  arrive  at 
a  finding  that  the  confession  was  truthful 
and  voluntary.  Merit  of  the  confession 
being   the   voluntariness   and  truthfulness, 


537 


the  same,  in  no  circumstances  should  be 
compromised.  We  are  not  oblivious  of  some 
of  the  decisions  of  this  Court  which 
proceeded  on  the  basis  that  conviction  of 
an  accused  on  the  basis  of  a  retracted 
confession  is  permissible  but  only  if  it 
is  found  that  retraction  made  by  accused 
was  wholly  on  a  false  premise." 

578.  Similarly,    the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State 

of  Tamilnadu  Versus  Nalini.,1999  Criminal  Law 
Journal,  page  3124  known  as  Rajiv  Gandhi's 
assassination  case  again  considered  the  legal 
position  of  the  confessions  vis  a  vis  Section  30  of 
the  Evidence  Act  and  held  as  under :- 


"Sections  24  to  30  deal  with  confession, 
Section  24  speaks  of  the  effect  of  a 
confession  made  by  an  accused  through 
inducement,  threat  or  promise  proceeding 
from  a  person  in  authority.  Whereas 
Section  25  and  Section  26  deal  with 
situations  where  such  'person  or 
authority'  is  police.  It  is  an 
institutionalized  presumption  against 
confession  extracted  by  police  or  in 
police  custody.  In  that  frame  of 
reference,  Section  24  is  the  genus  and 
Section  25  and  26  are  its  species.  In 
other  words,  Section  25  and  Section  26  are 
simple  corollaries  flowing  out  of  the 
axiomatic  and  generalized  proposition 
(confession  caused  by  inducement  where 
inducement  proceeds  from  a  [person  in 
authority,  is  bad  in  law)  contained  in 
Section  24.  They  are  directed  towards 
assessing  the  value  of  a  confession  made 
to  a  police  officer  or  in  police  custody." 

57  9.  Similarly,   in  Babu  Bhai  Udesinh  Parmar  Vs. 


538 


State  of  Gujrat,  IX  (2006)  SLT  117-IV  (2006)  CCR 
372  (SC)-2006  (12)  SCALE  385  ,  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  settled  that 

"The  policy  underlying  behind  Sections  25 
and  26  is  to  make  it  a  substantive  rule 
of  law  that  confessions  whenever  and 
wherever  made  to  the  police, or  while  in 
the  custody  of  the  Police  unless  made  in 
the  immediate  presence  of  a  Magistrate, 
shall  be  presumed  to  have  been  obtained 
under  the  circumstances  mentioned  in 
Section  24  and,  therefore,  inadmissible, 
except  so  far  as  is  provided  by  Section 
2  7  of  the  Act." 

Section  164,  however,  makes  the 
confession  before  a  Magistrate  admissible 
in  evidence.  The  manner  in  which  such 
confession  is  to  be  recorded  by  the 
Magistrate  provided  under  Section  164  of 
the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.  The  said 
provision,  inter  alia,  seeks  to  protect 
an  accused  from  making  a  confession, 
which  may  include  a  confession  before  a 
Magistrate,  still  as  may  be  under 
influence,  threat  or  promise  from  a 
person  in  authority.  It  takes  into  its 
embrace  the  right  of  an  accused  flowing 
from  Article  20  (3)  of  the  Constitution  of 
India  as  also  Article  21  thereof. 
Although,  Section  164provides  for 
safeguards,  the  same  can  not  be  said  to 
be  exhaustive  in  nature.  The  Magistrate 
putting  the  guestions  to  an  accused 
brought  before  him  from  police  custody, 
should  some  time,  in  our  opinion,  be  more 
intrusive  than  what  is  reguired  in  law 

580.  Applying  the  above  settled  propositions  of 

law,   first  of  all  let  us  take  the  confession  of  the 


539 


accused  persons  and  to  see  whether  making  of  these 
confessions  by  these  accused  persons  is  proved  as 
per  the  law  and  the  guidelines  laid  down  by  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court. 

581.  Before  doing  so,  let  us  point  out  the 
material  facts,  which  have  been  disclosed  by  the 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
accused  Shamsher  Singh     in  their  confession. 

582.  Accordingly  on  the  perusal  of  the 
confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW65/F 
shows  that  he  disclosed  the  following  main 
circumstances  leading  to  this  killing: - 

(a)  After  joining  the  police 
services,  his  father  was  killed  by  the 
terrorists  and  some  where  in  March, 
April,  1995,  his  old  friend  Harjit 
Singh,  who  was  settled  in  U.S. A  came  to 
India  and  met  him  and  he  discussed  with 
him  about  the  excess  committed  by  the 
Police  on  the  innocent  persons  on  the 
instigation  of  Beant  Singh,  then  Chief 
Minister,  Punjab,  who  is  also  indulging 
in  dictatorship  and  as  per  that 
discussion,  both  of  them  decided  to  kill 
Beant  Singh. 

(b)  Balwant    Singh    then  disclosed 


540 


that  he  is  ready  to  kill  Beant  Singh  if 
necessary  in  puts  be  provided  to  him  and 
Harjit  Singh  then  told  him  that  he  will 
discuss  this  matter  in  U.S.  A  and  will 
consider  the  plan. 

(  c  )  Thereafter  accused  Balwant 
Singh  discussed  this  fact  with  his 
friend  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  who  was 
also  ready  to  sacrifice  himself  for  the 
cause  of  his  community. 

(d)  In  the  beginning  of  June,  1995 
Harjit  Singh  rang  up  Balwant  Singh  and 
asked  him  to  meet  his  friend  at  Sheesh 
Ganj  Gurudwara,  Delhi,  where  that  person 
was  staying  and  waiting  for  Balwant 
Singh . 

(e)  Accused  Balwant  Singh  went  to 
Sheesh  Ganj  Gurudwara,  where  one  person, 
who  was  later  on  identified  as  accused 
Manjinder  Singh  @  Bawaji,  met  him  and 
took  him  to  a  Hotel,  where  he  introduced 
Balwant  Singh  with  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  all  of  them  discussed  the 
planning  to  kill  Beant  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh  also  offered  the  services  of  his 
friend  Dilawar  Singh  for  this  purpose. 
After   discussions,    accused   Jagtar  Singh 


541 


Hawara  took  his  telephone  number. 

(f)  In  the  first  week  of  July, 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  came  to  Patiala  and 
stayed  with  accused  Balwant  Singh,  where 
the  security  arrangements  of  Beant  Singh 
were  discussed  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
disclosed  that  they  will  kill  Beant 
Singh  with  the  help  of  a  human  bomb  and 
a  car  will  be  required  to  enter  the 
Secretariat.  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  also 
told  that  he  will  prepare  the  belt  bomb. 
Then  a  second  meeting  took  place,  which 
was  also  attended  by  Dilawar  Singh,  and 
the  plan  to  kill  Beant  Singh  was 
finalised  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
promised  to  arrange  the  necessary  in 
puts  for  this  plan. 

(g)  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  arranged 
the  explosive  RDX  and  also  promised  to 
arrange  the  Car  and  asked  for  making  of 
a  cloth  belt  to  make  the  bomb.  Accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh 
got  stitched  the  cloth  belt  and  police 
uniforms  from  a  tailor  in  the  A.C  market 
at  Patiala. 

(h)  On  24.8.1995,  in  the  evening 
Jagtar    Singh    Hawara    and    Balwant  Singh 


542 


met  at  University  Gate,  Patiala,  where 
two  persons  were  present  with  the  Car 
and  all  of  them  reached  Gurudwara  Dukh 
Nivaran,  Patiala.  At  Gurudwara  Dukh 
Nivaran,  Patiala,  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
introduced  two  persons  as  Paramjit 
Singh,  who  is  facing  trial  in  a  separate 
case  and  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  since 
proclaimed  offender. 

(i)  On      the      next      date,  accused 

Dilawar  Singh  was  also  called  at  Patiala 
and  all  of  them  discussed  the  plan  and 
they  decided  to  change  the  colour  of  the 
car  into  'off-white'  to  show  it  as  an 
official  car. 

(j)  After      that      all      of  them 

started  for  Chandigarh.  On  the  way 
Paramjit  Singh  got  down  and  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  etc.  brought  some 
more  explosive  and  all  of  them  came  to 
Chandigarh  after  getting  the  belts  and 
uniforms . 

(k)  On       26.8.1995       Jagtar  Singh 

Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  again  met  at 
Patiala  and  prepared  the  belt  bomb.  On 
27.8.1995  Dilawar  Singh  came  to  them 
and      some      splinters      etc      were  also 


543 


brought  from  the  Kabari  market  and 
added  in  the  belt. 

(1)  On    28.8.1995    all    of    them  met 

at  Chandigarh  and  the  accused  Dilawar 
took  them  in  a  room  in  a  house  in 
Phase-IV  of  Mohali,  which  was  occupied 
by  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  and  accused 
Gurmeet  Singh  was  introduced  by  accused 
Dilawar  Singh  to  all  of  them. 

(m)  Thereafter       accused  Dilawar 

Singh,  Balwant  Singh  met  accused 
Lakhwinder  Singh,  who  was  already 
joined  in  the  conspiracy  being  a  Police 
Constable  posted  in  Secretariat  to  know 
the  whereabouts  of  Beant  Singh.  On  the 
same  night,  some  more  explosives  and 
nut  bolts  were  put  in  the  belt  bomb  in 
the  room  of  accused  Gurmeet  Singh. 

(n)  On   29.8.1995   Dilawar   Singh  and 

Lakhwinder  Singh  went  on  Scooter  and 
thereafter  the  car  was  taken  from  the 
painter  in  the  evening.  Balwant  Singh 
and  Dilawar  Singh  went  to  the  Painter's 
shop  on  the  scooter  of  Balwant  Singh 
and  the  friend  of  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  brought  back  the  Scooter. 


544 


(o)  After    taking    the    delivery  of 

Car,  Balwant  Singh, Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Dilawar  Singh  met  in  the  room  of 
Gurmeet  Singh  and  the  belt  was  put  on 
by  Dilawar  Singh  but  when  they  reached 
Secretariat,  they  found  that  Beant 
Singh  had  already  left  and  as  such  they 
came  back  and  parked  the  Car  and 
removed  the  belt  bomb  and  the  dress  of 
Dilawar  Singh  and  kept  the  same  in  the 
room  of  Gurmeet  Singh. 

(p)  After      that      accused  Balwant 

Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  met  Lakhwinder 
Singh  and  had  liguor  and  then  went  to 
the  house  of  Chamkaur  Singh,  brother  of 
Dilawar  Singh  and  stayed  there  for  the 
night . 

(g)  On     31.8.1995     accused  Balwant 

Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  came  to  Mohali 
where  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  etc  were  there.  Thereafter,  again 
Dilawar  Singh  put  on  the  belt  bomb  and 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Dilawar 
Singh  went  to  Secretariat  in  the  Car 
whereas  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  reached  on  their  Scooter.  On  the 
way  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  got  down  and 
after    reaching    Secretariat,     he  joined 


545 


Dilawar  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  they 
waited  for  the  movements  of  Beant 
Singh . 

(  r  )  At  about  5.15  p.m  when  Beant 
Singh  came  out  Dilawar  Singh  went 
towards  VIP  gate  and  Balwant  Singh  left 
Secretariat  on  his  Scooter  and 
thereafter  Dilawar  Singh  exploded 
himself  and  killed  Beant  Singh  and 
others . 

(s)  Then   Balwant    Singh  disclosed 

the  places  where  he  stayed  with  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawra  and  others  and  under 
what  circumstances,   till  his  arrest. 

583.  Similarly     accused     Jagtar     Singh     Tara, in 

his  confession,  Ex.PW-86/4  to  Ex.PW-84/6  while 
reiterating  the  facts  stated  by  accused  Balwant 
Singh,   disclosed  that:- 

a.  Accused  Paramjit  Singh,  (who  is 
being  tried  separately)  who  was  also 
residing  in  Delhi  and  was  already  known 
to  him. 

b.  In  July,  1995  Paramjit 
introduced  him  with  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara    saying   that   he    is    active  member 


546 


of  Babbar  Khalsa  and  came  from  Pakistan 
after  having  training,  with  a  mission  to 
kill  Beant  Singh,  who  is  enemy  of  Sikh 
community  and  he  should  help  him. 

c.  He  further  disclosed  that  as  per  the 
plan  he  and  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
purchased  a  ambassador  car  no.  DBA-9598, 
on  20-08-1995,  from  S.K.Datta  of  Pachim 
Vihar  Delhi  for  a  sum  of  Rs .  32000/-  and 
he  represented  himself  as  Basant  Singh 
S/o  Jagir  Singh  and  parked  the  car  in 
the  house  of  accused  Paramjit  Singh  at 
Delhi . 

d.  He  further  disclosed  that  as  per  the 
plan  and  directions  of  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  on  receiving  massage  from  him,  he 
and  Paramjit  Singh  reached  Patiala  on 
24-08-95  near  University  Gate,  where 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  along  with 
Balwant  Singh  met  him  and  asked  him  to 
meet  on  25-08-95  at  Gurudwara  Dukh 
Niwaran . 

e.  On  25-08-95  he  and  Paramjit 
Singh  went  to  Gurudwara,  where  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  Balwant  Singh  and 
Dilawar  Singh  met  them  and  all  of 
started    for   Mohali.    On    the   way  accused 


547 


Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  took  the  car  towards 
village  Jhingran  kalan  and  brought  two 
bags  containing  RDX  and  other  articles 
and  they  reached  the  house  of  accused 
Gurmit  Singh  in  Phase-IV,  Mohali.  On 
reaching  there  some  of  the  ammunition 
was  kept  in  the  house  of  Gurmit  Singh 
whereas  some  part  was  kept  in  house  of 
accused  Jagrup  Singh. 

f.  On  26-08-95  as  per  the 
directions  of  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
accused  Paramjit  and  Dilawar  were  asked 
to  get  the  car  repainted  into  white 
colour  so  that  it  looks  like  a  Govt,  car 

g.  On  28-08-95  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  brought 
some  more  arms  and  ammunition  and  kept 
the  same  in  the  house  of  Jagrup  Singh. 
And  after  that  some  of  the  arms  and 
ammunition  were  shifted  to  the  house  of 
accused  Navjot  Singh. 

h.  On  30-08-95  accused  Lakhwinder 
Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  braught  the  car 
after  repaint  and  as  per  the  plan  he 
along  with  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  reached 
Secretariat     to     kill    Beant     Singh  at 


548 


about  4/4.30  pm  but  Beant  Singh  had 
already  left  the  Secretariat  and  as  such 
they  came  back  to  do  the  needful  on  the 
next  day. 

i.  On  31-08-95  they  all  again  reached 
Secretariat  and  at  about  accused  Dilawar 
Singh  did  the  needful  and  killed  Beant 
Singh . 

j  .  He    also    confessed   that    he  had 

already  shown  the  house  of  S.K  Dutta 
from  he  had  purchased  the  car  and  also 
identified  the  house  at  village  Jhingran 
Kalan  from  where  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  brought  RDX. 

584.  To    the    same    effect    is    the    confession  of 

accused  Shamsher  Singh.  However,  in  addition  to  the 
above  facts,  the  other  material  facts  disclosed  by 
him  as  to  this  conspiracy  and  its  execution 
including  his  own  role  and  the  role  of  the  other 
accused  persons,   are  as  follows :- 

(a)  That     he     was     knowing  accused 

Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  since  1993  through 
another  terrorist  Didar  Singh  and  as 
such  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  visited  him  on 
and  often. 


549 


(b)  In     the     month     of     July,  1995 

Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  came  to  him  and 
disclosed  to  him  that  he  has  come  from 
Pakistan  and  Wadhawa  Singh  and  Mehal 
Singh  have  directed  him  to  kill  Beant 
Singh  and  he  i.e  Shamsher  Singh  was  also 
not  happy  with  the  act  and  conduct  of 
Beant  Singh,  who  was  claiming  himself  to 
be  the  incarnation  of  Guru  Nanak  Dev  and 
Guru  Gobind  Singh  and  as  such  he  should 
be  punished. 

(  c  )  On      7/8.7.1995      Jagtar  Singh 

Hawara  requested  him  to  help  him  for 
their  operation  and  asked  him  to  meet 
him  i.e  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  at  Bangla 
Sahib  Gurudwara  on  16.7.1995. 

(d)  On  16.7.1995  he  met  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  at  the  above  place  where  one  more 
person  Harjit  Singh  @  Mini  Bawa  was  also 
present  and  got  some  instructions  from 
somebody  on  telephone  and  he  returned 
back . 

(e)  On  8.8.1995  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
asked  him  that  they  have  to  go  to  a 
Village  near  Ajnala  to  bring  RDX  to  kill 
Beant  Singh  and  then  he  talked  to  some 
person    on   telephone    and   asked   him  that 


550 


they  are  coming  to  get  the  RDX. 

(f)  After  that  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
directed  him  to  arrange  a  truck  and  meet 
him  at  Rajpura  bye-pass  along  with  the 
Truck.  Accordingly,  he  requested 
Sapinder  Singh,  his  cousin  brother,  for 
the  truck  and  he  agreed  to  provide  his 
Truck  and  he  along  with  Sapinder  Singh, 
Dal jit  Singh  and  one  Bihari  servant 
reached  Rajpura  bye-pass.  On  the  way, 
Dal jit  Singh  and  Bihari  servant  were 
left  at  Village  Ukasi.  Then  they  reached 
at  Zimidara  Dhaba,  where  one  more  person 
met  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  he 
accompanied  them  to  a  Village  near 
Aj  nala 

(g)  After  reaching  at  a  distance  of 
20  to  25  kms  away  from  Ajnala,  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  stopped  the  Truck  and  he 
along  with  the  other  persons  went  to 
some  place  and  after  some  time  came  back 
with  two  bags  and  asked  him  to  keep  the 
same  in  the  tool  box  of  the  truck.  After 
that,  they  started  their  journey  and 
returned  back.  On  the  way,  a  person,  who 
was  called  Lucky  @  Toni  got  down  and  all 
of  them  reached  in  his  house  and  Jagtar 
Singh   Hawara    kept   both   the   bags    in  his 


551 


house  and  Sapinder  Singh  left  with  his 
Truck . 

(h)  On  10.8.1995  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  again  met  him  near  a  Hotel  at 
Rajpura  bye-pass  and  made  a  telephonic 
call  and  talked  in  some  coded  language 
and  then  disclosed  him  that  he  has 
informed  the  caller  that  the  human  bomb 
is  ready  but  a  vehicle  is  required. 

(i)  On  the  next  day  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  took  away  both  the  bags  of  the 
RDX  on  Bajaj  Chetak  Scooter  and  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  promised  him  that  they  will 
kill  Beant  Singh  as  early  as  possible. 

585.  As    submitted    by    learned    defence  counsel 

for  remaining  accused  persons  and  as  held  above, 
these  confessions  can  not  be  made  sole  basis  to 
conclude  the  case  unless  corroborated  generally.  As 
such  let  us  scan  the  evidence  and  compare  the 
confessions  with  the  rest  of  the  evidence  to  decide 
whether  the  facts  disclosed  by  accused  Balwant 
Singh, Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and  Shamsher  Singh  leading 
to  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh,  which  is  otherwise 
admitted  by  Balwant  Singh,  are  corroborated  and 
supported  by  the  evidence  led  on  the  file. 


552 


(a)  Confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh 

and  its  relevancy: 

586.  Applying  the  above  settled  propositions  of 
law  to  the  facts  in  hand,  first  of  all,  let  us  take 
the  confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW65/F. 
In  this  regard  it  comes  out  that  for  the  sake  of 
repetition,  accused  Balwant  Singh  has  confessed  his 
guilt  in  clear  terms  but  he  denied  the  making  of 
confession,  Ex.PW65/F. 

587.  Accordingly,  after  considering  the 
evidence  of  the  prosecution  and  the  contention  of 
both  the  parties  on  this  aspect,  it  comes  out  that 
the  prosecution  has  successfully  proved  that  the 
commission  of  the  offence  of  killing  of  Beant  Singh 
by  Balwant  Singh  and  assasin  Dilawar  Singh,  is  as 
per  a  conspiracy  disclosed  by  Balwant  Singh,  in  his 
confession  Ex.PW65/F,  which  is  proved  to  be  legally 
and  voluntarily  made  confession  as  per  the 
safeguards  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  as 
well  as  Section  164  of  the  Cr.P.C. 

588.  The  prosecution  has  led  sufficient 
evidence  on  the  file  which  proves  that  the  acts  of 
omission  and  commission,  as  disclosed  by  accused 
Balwant  Singh  in  his  confessional  statement  are 
duly  proved  on  the  file  and  established  beyond 
doubt  that  accused  Balwant  Singh,  who  was  already 
having  an  ill-will  towards  Beant  Singh,  became  a 
member    of    the    conspiracy,     which    was    hatched  by 


553 


accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  with  the  help  of 
absconding  accused  persons  in  one  way  or  the  other. 

589.  To  prove  the  making  of  confession  by  this 

accused,  the  material  witness  of  the  prosecution  is 
PW-65,  Shri  V . K . Maheshwari  then  Metropolitan 
Magistrate,  Patiala  House  Courts,  New  Delhi. 
Accordingly,  when  this  witness  stepped  into  the 
witness  box,  he  deposed  that  on  the  application  of 
CBI,  Ex.PW65/C,  then  acting  CMM  vide  his  order 
Ex.PW65/C-l,  ordered  him  to  record  the  confession 
of  accused  Balwant  Singh.  Accordingly, accused 
Balwant  Singh  was  produced  before  him  on  22.1.1996 
and  after  taking  the  accused  in  his  custody,  all 
the  police  officials  were  sent  out  of  the  Chamber 
and  after  questioning  the  accused  as  per  the 
requirements  of  164  Cr.P.C  and  after  putting  the 
specific  questions  to  the  accused  as  mentioned  in 
the  proceedings,  Ex.PW65/D  and  Ex.PW65/E,  he  was 
satisfied  that  the  accused  is  going  to  make  a 
confession  without  any  force  or  coercion, pressure, 
inducement  or  threat.  Not  even  this,  he  further 
submitted  that  in  order  to  ensure  that  there  is  no 
undue  pressure  or  threat  to  accused  Balwant  Singh, 
he  remanded  him  to  judicial  custody  till  23.1.1996 
and  then  after  giving  him  sufficient  time  to  think 
over,  he  recorded  his  confession  on  23.1.1996  once 
again  satisfying  that  accused  Balwant  Singh  is 
making  the  confession  voluntarily  without  any  force 
or  pressure,    he   recorded  the   confession  of  accused 


554 


Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW65/F  as  per  the  facts  disclosed 
by  accused  Balwant  Singh  without  any  addition  or 
omission  from  his  side. 

590.  He  has  categorically  stated  that  before 
recording  the  confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh, 
he  did  not  find  any  mark  of  external  or  internal 
injury  on  the  person  of  Balwant  Singh  and  he  had 
also  explained  to  the  accused  that  he  is  not  bound 
to  make  any  confession  and  if  he  will  make  the 
same,  it  can  be  used  against  him.  He  has  further 
deposed  that  after  recording  the  confession, 
Ex.PW65/F,  he  read  over  and  explained  the  same  to 
the  accused  and  after  hearing  and  understanding  his 
statement,  accused  Balwant  Singh  put  his  signatures 
on  the  each  page.  Needless  to  say  before  recording 
the  proceedings  of  the  confession,  he  has 
introduced  himself  to  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  put 
all  the  relevant  questions  provided  under  chapter 
13  of  High  Court  Rules  &  Orders,   Volume  3. 

591.  After  recording  examination-in-chief  of 
this  witness,  opportunity  to  cross  examine  this 
witness  was  granted  to  accused  Balwant  Singh,  who 
was  conducting  his  trial  himself,  but  he  failed  to 
cross  examine  this  witness  despite  due  opportunity 
being  granted.  As  stated  earlier,  in  State  of  HP 
Vs.  Thakur  Dass , (supra) ,  the  Hon'ble  Himachal 
Pradesh  High  Court  reiterated  the  well  settled 
principle    of    law   that   when    a    statement   made   by  a 


555 


witness  on  oath  relating  to  some  facts  has  not  been 
challenged  in  cross  examination,  the  fact,  in 
question,   must  be  held  to  be  not  disputed. 

592.  At  the  same  time,  this  witness  was  cross 
examined  by  the  learned  defence  counsel  for 
remaining  accused  persons  and  despite  incisive 
cross-examination  of  this  witness,  the  learned 
defence  counsel  failed  to  point  out  any  infirmity 
or  any  other  favourable  thing  to  show  that  the 
confession  made  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  was  not 
voluntarily  made. 

593.  The  learned  defence  counsels  tried  to 
assail  the  statement  of  PW-65  mainly  on  two  counts 
firstly,  that  the  confession  has  been  recorded  in 
English  and  secondly,  no  legal  aid  was  provided  to 
accused  Balwant  Singh  before  recording  his 
confession.  However,  none  of  these  grounds  are 
sufficient  to  say  that  the  confession  recorded  by 
PW-65  is  against  the  provisions  of  the  law.  PW-65 
has  categorically  explained  that  accused  Balwant 
Singh  disclosed  that  he  is  a  graduate  and  he  had 
made  the  statement  while  using  Hindi  and  English 
words  and  he  recorded  the  same  in  English  and 
explained  the  same  to  the  accused  in  Hindi  or 
Punjabi.  If  it  is  so,  this  is  no  ground  to  discard 
the  confessional  statement. 

594.  As    far   as    the   second  plea   is  concerned, 


556 


while  questioning  accused  Balwant  Singh,  PW-65  has 
questioned  him  on  all  the  material  aspects  as  to 
rule  out  the  possibility  of  any  torture,  pressure, 
promise  or  inducement  by  the  CBI  or  the  Police  and 
despite  repeated  questions,  Balwant  Singh  disclosed 
that  he  wants  to  tell  the  truth  as  he  understood 
all  the  implications  of  making  of  the  confession 
but  still  he  wants  to  make  confession.  If  it  is  so, 
there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  say  that  the 
confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  is  against  the 
procedural  guidelines  or  the  principles  settled  by 
the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  as  discussed  above. 


594.  On     the      contrary,      it      shows      that  the 

confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  is  voluntarily 
made  confession  giving  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  under  which  this  conspiracy  was 
hatched  and  executed  and  some  of  these  facts  were 
so  peculiar  that  it  cannot  be  known  to  anybody  else 
except  accused  Balwant  Singh. 


595.  No   doubt,    accused  Balwant   Singh  has  tried 

to  twist  some  facts  as  to  the  circumstances  leading 
to  this  conspiracy  and  the  identity  and  the  role  of 
remaining  accused  persons  in  this  conspiracy  but 
this  endeavour  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  proves  in 
vain.  To  consider  this  aspect,  the  most  important 
factor  which  is  apparent  on  the  record  is,  that  the 
confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  was  recorded  on 
23-1-1996     and     by     that     time     all     the  remaining 


557 


accused  persons  of  this  trial,  were  already 
arrested  and  accused  Balwant  Singh  was  knowing  that 
whatever  he  will  disclose,  the  same  would  be  used 
against  his  co-accused  persons  also.  As  such,  with 
an  intention  to  confuse  the  matter  and  to  benefit 
his  co-accused  persons,  he  intentionally  twisted 
certain  facts  so  as  to  contradict  the  confessions 
of  the  other  accused  persons.  Otherwise  the  facts 
disclosed  by  Balwant  Singh  are  similar  to  the  facts 
disclosed  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara.  Thus,  this 
confession  is  a  substantive  evidence  against 
accused  Balwant  Singh  to  link  him  with  this 
conspiracy  and  is  sufficient  to  convict  him, 
specially  when  he  has  already  confessed  his  guilt. 
At  the  same  time,  this  confession  can  also  be 
pressed  into  service  to  lend  assurance  of  the 
circumstances  brought  on  the  file  against  the 
remaining  accused  persons,  as  per  the  spirit  of 
Section  30  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,  which  aspect 
will  be  taken  lateron. 

(b)  Confession  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 

Tara  and  its  relevancy. 

597.  Now  let  us  take  the  confession  of  accused 

Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  Ex.PW86/6.  Before  discussing  the 
evidence  of  prosecution  witnesses  on  this  point,  it 
will  not  be  out  of  place  to  mention  here  that 
during  the  trial,  when  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  was 
present  and  contesting  the  case,  on  6.5.1999,  he 
moved  an  application  and  thereby  retracted  from  his 

558 


confession,  alleging  that  he  had  suffered  this 
confession  under  pressure  and  torture  of  the  CBI 
and  the  Punjab  Police  and  no  legal  assistance  was 
given  to  him  before  recording  his  confession  and  as 
such  his  confession  is  not  voluntarily  made  and  it 
consists  of  false  facts.  However,  while  doing  so, 
he  also  admitted  that  he  was  associated  with 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  in  killing  S.Beant  Singh, 
who  was  the  enemy  of  the  Sikh  community  but  the 
manner  in  which  it  has  been  depicted  in  his 
confession  is  not  correct. 


598.  Not      even      this,      even     before      that  on 

2.9.1998  and  3.9.1998  this  accused  filed  two 
different  writings  in  his  own  hands,  in  which  he 
admitted  that  since  he  is  also  propounder  of 
Khalistan  and  thus,  he,  with  the  help  of  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh,  had  killed  Beant  Singh,  who  was 
guilty  of  eliminating  the  innocent  Sikhs  and  he  has 
no  remorse  and  ready  to  face  any  punishment.  But  he 
has  not  denied  the  making  of  confession  in  those 
applications.  If  it  is  so,  in  view  of  these 
writings,  it  comes  out  that,  as  submitted  by 
learned  Public  Prosecutor,  there  is  no  legal 
retraction  as  per  law.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
accused  has  also  admitted  his  role  and 
participation  in  this  conspiracy  leading  to  killing 
of  S.Beant  Singh,  whereas  accused  Balwant  Singh 
while  retracting  from  his  confession  alleged  that 
only    he    and    deceased    Dilawar    Singh    were  involved 


559 


and  no  other  person  was  involved.  Thus,  this  fact 
alone  shows  that  it  was  not  a  case  of  conspiracy 
involving  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh 
only,  but  some  more  persons  were  the  members  of 
this  conspiracy,  including  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  and  performed  their  part  as  alleged  by  the 
prosecution . 

599.  With  this  background,  let  us  consider  the 
evidence  of  prosecution  to  know  whether  the 
confession  made  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  is 
legally  made  and  voluntarily  suffered  confession  as 
per  the  requirement  of  the  law  and  the  guidelines 
laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  as  mentioned 
above . 

600.  To  prove  the  confession  of  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara,  the  prosecution  examined  PW-86,  Shri 
Balbir  Singh,  then  Special  Judicial  Magistrate,  CBI 
Court,  Punjab  at  Patiala  and  this  witness  when 
appeared  in  the  witness  box  categorically  deposed 
that  on  22.9.1995  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  was 
produced  in  the  court  along  with  the  request, 
Ex.PW86/l  for  recording  the  confession  of  this 
accused,  as  per  his  willingness.  Accordingly,  he 
took  the  accused  in  his  custody  and  asked  him  to 
sit  in  the  court  and  to  think  over  and  ordered  that 
his  statement  will  be  recorded  at  3.00  p.m.  This 
order  was  passed  by  PW-86  at  12.00  p.m. 


560 


601.  Accordingly,  he  further  stated  that  at 
3.00  p.m.  he  took  up  the  matter  and  as  per  the 
requirements  of  the  law,  he  has  explained  to  the 
accused  that  he  is  a  judicial  Magistrate  and  that 
the  accused  is  not  bound  to  make  any  confession  and 
if  he  will  make  the  confession,  it  may  be  used 
against  him  and  after  questioning  the  accused,  he 
was  satisfied  that  the  accused  was  free  from  any 
pressure,  threat  or  fear  and  he  intends  to  make 
confession  of  his  own  free  will. 

602.  Not  even  this,  he  further  stated  that  the 
accused  himself  prayed  that  he  wants  to  make  the 
confession  without  any  pressure,  threat  as  per  his 
writing,  Ex.PW86/3  and  thereafter  he  recorded  the 
confession  of  the  accused  as  per  the  facts 
disclosed  by  him  without  any  omission  or  addition 
which  is  Ex.PW86/6  and  after  recording  the 
confession,  he  gave  certificate,  Ex.PW86/5  and  also 
passed  orders,  Ex.PW86/2  and  Ex.PW86/7  and 
thereafter  remanded  the  accused  to  judicial  custody 
as  per  his  order  Ex.PW86/ll.  PW-86  has 
categorically  stated  that  when  he  recorded  the 
confession  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  no  one 
except  he  himself,  his  Reader  and  Steno-Typist ,  was 
present  in  the  court  along  with  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Tara  and  no  police  official  or  CBI  official, 
APP  or  any  other  person  was  present. 

604.  Although,    this   witness   was   cross  examined 


561 


by  learned  counsel  for  the  other  accused  persons 
but  when  opportunity  to  cross  examine  this  witness 
was  granted  to  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  who  was 
present  at  that  time  and  who  was  not  taking  the 
help  of  any  Advocate,  alleging  that  he  does  not 
want  to  contest  this  case  as  per  his  earlier 
writings,  he  suggested  to  PW-86  that  he  had 
requested  him  i.e  PW-86  to  provide  him  a  counsel 
but  this  fact  was  denied  by  PW-86.  A  suggestion 
that  the  confession  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
was  recorded  as  per  the  questions  and  answer  given 
by  Shri  Raj  an  Malhotra,  Special  P.P.  of  the  CBI 
without  putting  the  same  to  the  accused  and  thereby 
pressurized  to  suffer  the  confession,  was  denied  by 
PW-86  categorically.  Not  even  this,  another 
suggestion  was  put  to  him  that  he  has  not  recorded 
the  confession  of  the  accused  correctly  and  as  per 
the  facts  disclosed  by  him.  It  was  during  this 
cross  examination,  when  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
moved  the  application  dated  6.5.1999  retracting 
from  his  confession. 

605.  Thus,      the      cross      examination      of  this 

witness  clearly  shows  that  there  is  nothing  on  the 
file  to  say  that  the  confession  of  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  was  recorded  by  PW-86  without  satisfying 
himself  about  the  state  of  mind  of  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  without  satisfying  that  he  was  under  the 
pressure  and  threat  of  the  CBI.  Not  even  this,  this 
witness    was    also    cross    examined    by    the  learned 


562 


defence  counsel  for  the  other  accused  persons.  But 
apart  from  cross  examining  him  on  irrelevant 
matters,  nothing  material  comes  out  to  say  that  the 
confession  of  the  accused  is  not  recorded  as  per 
the  legal  requirements  and  the  guidelines.  On  the 
contrary,  PW-86  has  reiterated  that  when  the 
accused  was  produced  for  the  first  time  at  12.00 
noon,  he  enquired  from  the  accused  as  to  his 
willingness  to  make  the  confession  and  at  that 
time,  no  one  was  present  in  the  court  except 
accused  and  the  court  staff. 

605.  Not  even  this,  he  has  categorically 
deposed  that  to  ward-off  the  police  pressure,  if 
any,  he  asked  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  to  sit  in 
the  court  and  to  re-think.  No  doubt,  it  is  admitted 
by  PW-86  that  he  has  not  questioned  the  accused  as 
to  for  how  long  he  had  been  in  the  custody  of  the 
CBI  and  the  Police  remand  or  that  whether  he 
requires  an  Advocate.  But  this  makes  no  difference 
because  as  stated  by  PW-86,  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Tara  himself  moved  an  application,  Ex.PW86/3 
wherein  he  submitted  that  he  wants  to  tell 
everything  true  about  the  murder  of  S.Beant  Singh 
and  there  is  no  pressure  on  him  and  he  wants  to 
make  a  voluntary  statement  in  this  regard.  As  such, 
this  omission  has  no  affect  on  the  confession  made 
by  the  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara. 

606.  As    far    as    the    plea    of    learned  defence 


563 


counsel  that  sufficient  time  was  not  granted  to  the 
accused  before  recording  his  confession  is 
concerned,  as  stated  earlier,  this  aspect  was 
considered  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Shankaria ' s 
case  (Supra) ,  where  an  interval  of  15  minutes 
between  the  preliminary  questioning  and  recording 
of  confession  was  found  sufficient  and  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  held  that  how  much  time  for  reflection 
should  be  allowed  to  an  accused  persons  before 
recording  his  confession  is  a  question,  which 
depends  on  the  circumstances  of  the  each  case.  The 
only  object  of  giving  such  time  for  reflection  to 
the  accused  is  to  ensure  that  he  is  completely  free 
from  Police  influence  and  there  is  no  statutory 
provision  for  the  same.  But  the  only  condition 
precedent  for  recording  a  confession  by  the 
Magistrate  in  the  course  of  Police  investigation  is 
that  the  Magistrate  should  not  record  any 
confession  unless  upon  questioning  the  accused 
making  it,  he  has  reason  to  believe  that  it  is 
being  made  voluntarily.  Thus,  there  is  no  force  in 
this  plea  to  discard  the  statement  of  PW-86. 


607.  In  view  of  above  discussion,   the  testimony 

of  PW-86  remained  unrebutted  and  clearly  spells  out 
that  as  admitted  by  this  accused,  he  was  part  and 
parcel  of  this  conspiracy  and  he  had  made  a  true 
and  voluntarily  confession  giving  the  details  of 
the  conspiracy  and  the  role  of  each  of  the  accused 
persons,     which     is     admissible,     not     only  against 


564 


accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  since  proclaimed  offender 
for  the  purpose  of  Section  299  Cr.P.C,  but  it  is 
also  admissible  against  the  other  accused  persons 
u/s  30  of  the  Evidence  Act  subject  to  the  condition 
that  there  must  be  broad  and  general  corroboration 
to  the  facts  disclosed  in  the  confession. 

(c  )  Confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh 

and  its  relevancy. 

608.  Now  let  us  take  the  confession  of  third 
accused  Shamsher  Singh.  This  accused  has  suffered  a 
confession  before  PW-103,  Dinesh  Kumar  Sharma,  then 
Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala  House  Courts,  New 
Delhi.  Before  taking  the  evidence  of  prosecution, 
first  of  all,  let  us  consider  the  two  technical 
objection  raised  by  learned  defence  counsel  in  this 
regard . 

609.  The  first  objection  raised  by  learned 
defence  counsel  is  that  it  is  admitted  case  of  the 
prosecution  that  in  the  first  charge  sheet  filed 
against  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  etc.,  the  name  of 
this  accused  was  also  mentioned  and  if  it  was  so, 
the  police  was  having  no  authority  to  further 
investigate  the  case  against  this  accused  without 
the  permission  of  the  court  and  as  such  all  the 
investigations  made  by  the  CBI  against  this  accused 
after  submission  of  the  first  charge  sheet  and 
taking  of  cognizance  by  the  Sessions  Court  are 
illegal  and  vitiate  the  trial  against  this  accused 


565 


and  any  evidence  collected  during  those 
investigations  cannot  be  read  against  the  accused 
and  secondly,  that  the  recording  of  confession  by 
PW-103  after  filing  of  the  charge  sheet  can  not  be 
taken  into  consideration  being  not  permissible 
under  the  law  as  per  the  law  laid  down  by  Hon'ble 
Allahabad  High  Court  in  Bachan  Lai  &  Ram  Sarup's 
case  (Supra) . 

610.  However,  after  going  through  the  case  law 
relied  upon  by  the  prosecution  and  after 
considering  the  facts  &  circumstances  under  which 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  arrested  and  challaned, 
it  comes  out  that  as  submitted  by  learned  Public 
Prosecutors,  both  these  objections  are  without  any 
legal  basis  and  have  no  affect  on  the  prosecution 
of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  on  the  basis  of 
subseguent  charge  sheet. 

611.  In   Shri   Bhagwan   Samardha's    case  (supra), 

the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that  when  Police  after 
conducting  the  investigation  submitted  a  final 
report  against  an  accused  and  the  Magistrate  had 
taken  the  cognizance,  it  is  open  to  Police  to 
conduct  further  investigation  with  the  formal 
permission  of  the  court  and  the  court  has  power  to 
do  so  even  without  hearing  the  accused  on  this 
aspect . 

612.  Similar    principle    was    reiterated    by  the 


566 


Hon'ble    Kerala    High    Court    in    Vijay    Kumar's  case 

(Supra)  and  by  the  Hon'ble  Andhra  Pradesh  High 
Court    in    Ravi    Krindi    Rama    Swami '  s    case  (Supra). 

However,  the  facts  of  the  present  case  are  totally 
distinguishable  because  in  the  first  charge  sheet 
submitted  by  the  CBI,  although  the  name  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  was  mentioned  but  he  was  shown  as 
absconder  and  no  proceedings  to  declare  him  a 
proclaimed  offender  were  initiated  and  completed 
and  he  was  never  charge  sheeted  with  the  other 
accused  persons.  On  the  contrary,  a  perusal  of  the 
record  shows  that  after  filing  of  the  first  charge 
sheet,  on  18.12.1995  it  was  disclosed  by  the 
committed  accused  persons  that  accused  Shamsher 
Singh  has  been  arrested  by  the  Punjab  Police  and  on 
the  basis  of  that  information,  this  accused  was 
arrested  by  the  CBI  in  the  present  case  and  after 
conducting  investigations  against  him,  a 
supplementary  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  him. 

613.  As   such,    neither  there  was   a   charge  sheet 

against  this  accused  as  per  provision  of  Section 
173  Cr.P.C  nor  any  cognizance  was  taken  against  him 
by  any  court.  On  the  contrary,  a  perusal  of  the 
first  charge  sheet  shows  that  only  five  accused 
persons  namely  Gurmeet  Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
Jagtar  Singh  @  Tara,  Navjot  Singh  and  Nasib  Singh 
were  sent  for  trial.  Whereas  the  name  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  along  with  the  other  accused 
persons,   who  were  also  absconding,   was  mentioned  in 


567 


column  no. 2,  which  is  meant  for  name  of  the  accused 
persons,  who  have  not  been  sent  for  trial.  Thus  by 
no  stretch  of  imagination,  it  can  be  said  that 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  already  charge  sheeted 
and  if  it  is  so,  the  first  plea  proved  in  vain  to 
derive  any  benefit  for  accused  Shamsher  Singh. 

614.  Similarly,  the  second  plea  also  becomes 
redundant  in  view  of  the  fact  that  once  it  is 
proved  that  accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  never  charge 
sheeted  in  the  first  charge  sheet  as  he  was  never 
arrested  and  his  role  was  never  investigated  nor 
any  trial  was  pending  against  him,  the  confession 
recorded  by  PW-103  was  during  the  investigation  of 
this  case  against  this  accused  and  not  subsequent 
to  the  closing  of  the  investigation  and  the 
submission  of  the  charge  sheet.  Similarly,  it  is 
also  proved  that  no  trial  was  commenced  against 
this  accused  either  before  committing  Magistrate  or 
before  the  Court  of  Sessions.  As  such,  this  plea 
also  proves  in  vain  and  the  case  law  relied  upon  by 
the  defence  on  this  aspect  is  of  no  help  to  the 
accused  specially  when  perusal  of  the  commitment 
order  dated  11.12.1995  of  the  then  Chief  Judicial 
Magistrate,  Chandigarh  shows  that  after  considering 
the  charge  sheet,  he  has  committed  the  case  to  the 
Court  of  Sessions  only  against  five  accused 
persons,   who  were  sent  for  trial. 

615.  Now,     let    us    consider    the    confession  of 


568 


accused  Shamsher  Singh  on  merits,  as  to  whether  it 
is     legally  and  voluntarily  made  and  suffered. 

616.  To  prove  the  confession  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh,  the  prosecution  has  examined  PW- 
103,  Dinesh  Kumar,  then  Metropolitan  Magistrate, 
Patiala  Courts  House,  New  Delhi  and  this  witness, 
when  appeared  in  the  witness  box  categorically 
deposed  that  on  15.12.1995,  on  the  application  of 
the  CBI,  Ex.PW103/A  and  as  per  the  orders  of 
A.C.M.M.,  Delhi,  Ex.PW103/B,  he  took  up  the 
proceedings  for  recording  the  confession  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  on  16.12.1995,  as  on  15.12.1995 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  not  produced. 

617.  He  further  deposed  that  on  16.12.1995,  at 
around  11.30  a.m.  accused  Shamsher  Singh  was 
produced  before  him  and  after  sending  everybody  out 
of  the  court,  he  explained  to  the  accused  that  he 
is  not  bound  to  make  any  confession  and  if  he 
choses  to  make  confession,  the  same  may  be  used 
against  him. 

618.  He  further  deposed  that  he  also  explained 
to  the  accused  that  he  is  working  as  Metropolitan 
Magistrate  and  the  accused  disclosed  that  he  is 
religious  person  and  he  wants  to  make  a  confession 
to  bring  true  facts  on  record  giving  his 
explanation  as  mentioned  in  the  proceedings, 
Ex.PW103/D,     saying    that    he    is    going    to    make  the 


569 


confession  without  any  coercion,  undue  influence  or 
threat  and  he  (PW-103)  was  satisfied  that  the 
accused  is  not  under  any  pressure  or  threat  or  fear 
and  he  intends  to  make  confession  of  his  own  free 
will . 


619.  As   per   PW-103,    although   he   was  satisfied 

that  there  is  no  pressure  on  the  accused,  however 
to  ward-off  any  such  pressure,  or  undue  influence 
etc.,  he  asked  the  accused  to  sit  in  the  court  and 
think  over,  saying  that  he  will  take  up  the  matter 
again  at  3.00  p.m. 


620.  As   per   this   witness,    at   about    3.35  p.m., 

he  again  took  up  the  matter  and  as  per  the 
requirements  of  the  law,  he  again  explained  to  the 
accused  that  he  is  not  bound  to  make  any  confession 
and  if  he  will  make  and  then  even  if  he  retracts 
from  the  same,  it  will  be  used  against  him  and  that 
he  will  not  be  handed  over  to  the  CBI  even  if  he 
will  not  make  any  statement  and  thus  again 
questioned  the  accused  and  was  satisfied  that 
accused  is  free  from  any  pressure  or  influence  and 
after  giving  his  opinion  in  this  regard  Ex.PW103/F, 
he  recorded  the  confessional  statement  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  running  into  8  pages,  Ex.PW103/G,  as 
per  the  facts  disclosed  by  the  accused  without  any 
omission  or  addition.  After  recording  the 
confession,  the  same  was  read  over  &  explained  to 
the    accused    and    he    signed    it    in    token    of  its 


570 


correctness  on  all  papers  and  he  (PW-103)  gave  his 
certificate,  Ex.PW103/H. 


621.  He    further    deposed    that    after  recording 

his  statement,  the  accused  was  remanded  to 
judicial  custody  with  direction  to  the  jail 
authorities  to  produce  him  at  Chandigarh  on 
18.12.1995,  as  per  his  order,  Ex.PW103/K  and 
thereafter,  after  supplying  the  copies  of 
disclosure  statement,  he  forwarded  the  proceedings 
to  CJM,  Chandigarh  through  ACMM,  Patiala  House,  New 
Delhi . 


622.  During     the     cross     examination     of  this 

witness,  a  suggestion  was  put  to  him  that 
confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  has  been 
recorded  by  force  and  under  the  pressure  of  CBI  but 
it  was  denied  by  the  witness. 


623.  Apart      from     this,      he     was      also  cross 

examined  incisively  by  the  learned  defence  counsels 
to  allege  that  the  confession  of  accused  Shamsher 
Singh  was  not  a  voluntarily  made  confession  and  not 
recorded  as  per  the  legal  requirements.  However, 
this  endeavor  of  learned  defence  counsels  proved  in 
vain,  as  the  testimony  of  this  witness  remained 
unrebutted  and  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  say 
that  the  confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  is 
not  recorded  as  per  the  requirement  of  law  and  same 
is  not  voluntarily  made  confession. 


571 


624.  Now  let  us  take  up  the  grounds  put  forward 
by  the  learned  defence  counsel  to  challenge  the 
testimony  of  PW-103  consisting  of  some  legal 
objections  and  factual  assertions  based  on  the 
cross  examination  of  PW-103. 

625.  As  far  as  the  first  plea  of  learned 
defence  counsel  as  to  the  circumstances,  under 
which  the  name  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  surfaced 
in  the  investigation  and  before  whom,  is  concerned, 
this  plea  is  without  any  basis  because  PW-248, 
S.N.Saxena,  Chief  Investigating  Officer  of  the 
case,  categorically  explained  that  after  the  arrest 
of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  he  disclosed  the  name 
of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  during  his  interrogation 
but  he  could  not  be  arrested  as  he  was  absconding 
and  later  on  when  he  came  to  know  about  the  arrest 
of  the  accused  by  the  Punjab  police,  he  instructed 
PW-231,  Rajesh  Kumar,  Inspector,  CBI  to  arrest  this 
accused  as  he  has  been  arrested  by  the  Punjab 
Police  and  was  to  be  produced  in  the  court  of 
Special  Magistrate,  CBI,  Patiala.  PW-231  has  also 
explained  this  fact.  No  doubt,  as  submitted  by 
learned  defence  counsel,  in  the  disclosure 
statement  made  by  Jagtar  Singh  Tara,  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  name  of  this  accused  and  even  in  his 
confession  also  but  it  makes  no  difference  as  it  is 
for  the  Investigating  Officer  to  see  as  to  how  he 
arrest    the    suspected    accused.    As    such,    this  plea 


572 


proves  in  vain  to  raise  any  doubt  as  to  the 
identity  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh. 

626.  As  far  as  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  that  the  arrest  of  this  accused  is  also 
doubtful  and  goes  to  show  that  he  was  already  under 
the  custody  of  Punjab  Police  and  was  tortured  and 
forced  to  suffer  this  confession,  is  concerned, 
again  there  is  no  force  in  this  plea  because  it  is 
explained  by  PW-231  that  as  per  the  direction  of 
PW-248,  he  went  to  the  court  of  Special  Magistrate, 
CBI,  Patiala,  where  accused  Shamsher  Singh  was 
going  to  be  produced  and  he  filed  an  application 
for  taking  the  custody  in  this  case.  On  his 
application,  the  Special  Magistrate,  CBI,  granted 
him  permission  to  arrest  the  said  accused.  During 
the  course  of  arguments,  the  learned  defence 
counsels  have  placed  on  the  record  copy  of  the 
order  of  the  Special  Magistrate  dated  11.12.1995, 
which  clarifies  the  entire  issue. 

627.  A  perusal  of  this  order  shows  that  when 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  was  produced  before  the 
court  of  SDM  (sic  SJM  i.e.  Special  Judicial 
Magistrate) ,  Patiala  in  some  other  case,  on  the 
application  moved  by  PW-231,  the  Special 
Magistrate,  CBI,  permitted  to  arrest  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  in  this  case  and  thereafter  he  was 
also  remanded  to  police  custody  till  20.12.1995. 
Thus,    there  is  no  confusion  as  far  as  the  arrest  of 


573 


this  accused  by  the  orders  of  the  Special 
Magistrate,  CBI,  is  concerned,  as  stated  by  PW- 
231,  in  his  examination-in-chief  and  the  word 
Special  Judicial  Magistrate  may  be  wrongly 
mentioned  as  SDM,  instead  of  SJM  during  his 
statement  because  of  similarity  of  pronunciation 
and  wording. 

628.  This  fact  is  further  clear  from  the  cross 
examination  of  PW-231  as  in  the  first  question,  he 
has  categorically  stated  that  the  accused  was 
produced  before  the  Special  Judicial  Magistrate, 
CBI  and  thereafter  the  word  Special  Magistrate  has 
been  mentioned  as  Sub  Divisional  Magistrate  despite 
the  fact  that  the  tone  and  the  toner  of  PW-231  was 
that  all  these  proceedings  were  done  by  the  Special 
Judicial  Magistrate,  CBI  and  this  fact  is  also 
supported  by  the  order  of  the  Special  Magistrate, 
CBI,   which  is  part  of  the  record. 

629.  Not  even  this,  during  the  course  of 
further  cross  examination  of  this  witness,  the 
zimni  regarding  these  proceedings  was  also  shown  to 
the  witness  and  in  that  zimni  also,  it  is  mentioned 
that  the  accused  has  been  arrested  from  the  court 
of  Special  Magistrate,  Patiala  and  not  from  the 
court  of  Sub  Divisional  Magistrate,  Patiala  as  is 
clear  from  the  order  dated  11.12.1995  which  is  part 
of  record.  Thus,  this  confusion  has  been  created 
because    of   bona    fide    typographical   mistake  during 


574 


the  cross  examination  of  this  witness.  As  such, 
this  plea  also  proves  in  vain  to  falsify  the  case 
of  the  prosecution  against  this  accused. 

630.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  admitted  case  of 
the  prosecution  that  this  accused  was  already 
arrested  by  the  Punjab  Police  and  there  is  no 
evidence  on  the  file  to  say  that  he  was  in  the 
illegal  custody  of  the  Punjab  Police.  If  it  is  so, 
there  is  no  question  of  presuming  that  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  was  in  illegal  custody  of  Punjab 
Police  and  the  arrest  of  the  accused  is  duly  proved 
to  have  been  made  on  11.12.1995.  There  is  no 
admission  on  the  part  of  Chief  Investigating 
Officer  regarding  arrest  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh 
since  September,  1995  and  the  plea  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  that  he  along  with  his  brother  and 
family  members  was  arrested  in  September,  1995  is 
not  supported  by  any  evidence  specially  when  it  is 
admitted  case  of  the  defence  that  this  accused  was 
arrested  only  when  they  filed  an  application  in 
this  regard  before  this  Court. 

631.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  proved  that  this 
accused  was  arrested  in  FIR  No.  127  of  1995  by  the 
Rajpura  Police  on  7.11.1995  along  with  other 
accused  of  that  case  and  thereafter  he  was  arrested 
in  this  case  only  when  the  CBI  came  to  know  about 
his  arrest  by  the  Punjab  Police.  As  such  this  plea 
has   no   bearing   on   the   defence   of   accused  Shamsher 


575 


Singh . 


632.  Similarly,  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  that  the  CBI  should  have  taken  the 
production  warrant  of  this  accused  instead  of 
arresting  him  from  Patiala,  so  that  he  could  be 
produced  before  the  Area  Magistrate,  where  he  would 
have  a  right  to  defend  himself,  but  this  process 
has  been  misused  by  the  CBI  just  to  deny  the  right 
of  legal  aid  to  this  accused,  is  also  without  any 
basis  and  having  no  relevancy  because  the  CBI  was 
also  legally  justified  in  arresting  the  accused 
from  Patiala  after  taking  the  permission  of  the 
concerned  court. 

633.  In  State  of  Rajasthan  Vs.  Santosh  Yadav's 
case  (Supra) ,  an  authority  relied  upon  by  learned 
defence  counsel,  the  guestion  before  the  Full 
Bench  was,  whether  production  warrant  requiring 
attendance  of  prisoner  lodged  in  judicial  custody 
in  one  case,  can  be  issued  for  the  purpose  of 
investigations  in  another  case  and  this  question 
was  answered  in  affirmative  by  the  Full  Bench.  But 
how  this  authority  is  relevant  for  this  case,  is  a 
fact,  which  is  not  clarified.  As  such,  this  plea 
has  also  no  relevancy. 

634.  Similarly,  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  that  no  legal  aid  was  provided  to  the 
accused    before    recording    his    confession,     is  also 


576 


without  any  basis  because  at  the  time  of  recording 
of  confession,  it  is  only  the  subjective 
satisfaction  of  the  recording  Magistrate  to  assess 
the  mental  state  of  affairs  and  the  question  of 
legal  assistance  will  arise  only  if  the  accused 
alleged  so,  being  an  indigent  person  and  it  was  in 
these  circumstances  that  the  Hon'ble  Gawahati  High 
Court  in  Dimba  Kalita  Vs.  State  of  Assam,  1987(1) 
Crimes,  page  799,  held  that  recording  of  a 
confession  of  an  indigent  person  without  affording 
him  legal  assistance  can  be  fatal  but  in  the 
present  case,  there  is  nothing  on  the  file  to  say 
that  the  accused  was  an  indigent  person  or  that  he 
was  not  knowing  his  legal  rights. 

635.  On  the  contrary,  he  was  already  in  custody 
in  a  criminal  case  and  was  arrested  on  7.11.1995 
whereas  he  was  produced  before  the  Special  Judicial 
Magistrate  on  11.12.1995  and  if  it  was  so,  then 
there  is  no  question  of  providing  him  any  legal  aid 
by  PW-103.  Even,  in  the  case  relied  upon  by  the 
defence,  the  confession  was  held  to  be  containing 
exculpatory  statement  of  causing  death  in  right  of 
private  defence  and  was  held  to  be  not  a 
confession.  As  such,  this  authority  is  of  no  help 
to  the  accused. 

636.  As  far  as,  the  plea  of  learned  defence 
counsel  that  the  accused  was  already  in  custody  for 
more    than    3    months    including    the    illegal  custody 


577 


and  as  such,  he  was  under  the  thumb  and  pressure  of 
the  police  and  was  forced  to  make  the  confession, 
is  concerned,  there  is  no  force  in  this  plea 
because  as  stated  earlier,  this  accused  was 
arrested  by  the  CBI  in  the  present  case  only  on 
11.12.1995  and  thereafter,  he  was  taken  to  Delhi, 
where  he  was  interrogated  and  then  produced  before 
the  court  of  Judicial  Magistrate  on  15.12.1995 
which  means  that  he  was  in  the  police  custody  only 
for  3  days  i.e  from  12.12.1995  to  14.12.1995  and 
he  expressed  his  desire  to  make  the  confession  on 
14.12.1995  itself  and  as  such  there  was  no 
prolonged  custody  immediately  preceding  the  making 
of  confession  by  this  accused. 

637.  In  Nathu  Vs.  State  of  UP,  AIR  1956, 
Supreme  Court,  Page  56,  an  authority  relied  upon  by 
learned  defence  counsel  on  this  aspect,  it  was  held 
that  a  prolonged  custody  immediately  preceding  the 
making  of  confession  is  sufficient  to  stamp  it  as 
involuntary  unless  it  is  properly  explained. 
Similarly  in  Sarwan  Singh  Vs.  State  of  Punjab 
(supra)  ,  this  very  principle  was  also  settled  with 
the  findings  that  the  unexplained  prolong  police 
custody  of  the  accused  before  making  his 
confession,   makes  it  doubtful. 

638.  However,  in  this  case,  PW-103  has 
categorically  deposed  that  before  recording  the 
confession,   he  was  fully  satisfied  that  there  is  no 


578 


pressure  on  the  accused  and  only  then  he  recorded 
the  same  and  if  it  is  so,  the  apprehension  of 
learned  defence  counsel  is  not  well  founded  and  not 
available  to  the  defence. 


639.  PW-103    has    categorically    explained  that 

before  recording  the  confession  of  the  accused,  he 
has  questioned  him  extensively  about  the  state  of 
health  of  the  accused,  as  to  whether,  he  is  under 
pressure  or  fear  or  influence  by  anybody  to  make 
confession;  as  to  that  if  made  it  can  be  used 
against  him  and  he  can  not  retract  from  the  same; 
as  to  the  fact  that  he  is  working  as  Judicial 
Magistrate  and  lastly  gave  him  time  of  about  four 
hours  to  reconsider  his  desire  of  making  the 
confession  and  after  doing  all  these  proceedings, 
as  per  his  opinion,  Ex.PW103/D  and  Ex.PW103/E,  he 
was  fully  satisfied  that  the  accused  is  making  the 
confession  voluntarily,  without  any  pressure  or 
fear  etc. 


640.  Thus    both   the    authorities    relied   upon  by 

learned  defence  counsel  on  this  plea  are  of  no  help 
to  the  defence  specially  when  in  Sarwan's  case 
(Supra)  ,  at  the  time  of  recording  of  confession  by 
the  Magistrate,  the  accused  showed  some  injuries 
and  yet  the  learned  Magistrate  did  not  enquire,  how 
the  accused  suffered  those  injuries  and  only  half 
an  hour  was  given  to  him  to  rethink  for  making  the 
confession,    that    too,    without    questioning    him  to 


579 


know  that  he  is  free  from  any  pressure,  fear  or 
undue  influence  as  per  the  requirement  of  Section 
164  (3)  .  But  in  this  case,  these  precautions  have 
been  duly  taken  by  PW-103. 

641.  The  next  plea  raised  by  learned  defence 
counsel  is  that  PW-103  has  not  explained  to  the 
accused  in  black  &  white  that  he  is  a  Judicial 
Magistrate  and  thus  the  accused  should  have  no  fear 
in  telling  the  truth.  As  such,  there  is  nothing  on 
the  record  to  show  that  the  accused  was  explained 
that  he  is  before  a  Magistrate  and  he  should  not 
have  any  fear.  Even  in  the  entire  proceedings  of 
this  confession,  consisting  of  11  pages,  it  is 
nowhere  mentioned  by  PW-103  that  he  is  a  Judicial 
Magistrate  and  he  is  conducting  the  proceedings,  as 
such.  Even  under  his  signatures  and  orders,  he  has 
not  mentioned  his  designation,  which  further  shows 
that  the  accused  was  never  explained  about  this 
fact  and  as  such  the  entire  proceedings  of 
recording  of  confession  stand  vitiated  and  makes 
this  confession  inadmissible.  In  support  of  this 
plea,  he  has  relied  upon  Santana  Badchat  Vs. State 
of  Orrisa's  case  (Supra). 

642.  However,  after  going  through  the  testimony 
of  PW-103  and  the  proceedings  of  the  confession,  it 
comes  out  that  no  doubt  in  the  proceedings,  a 
specific  question  in  black  &  white  has  not  been 
recorded  by   PW-103,    that   he    introduced   himself  to 


580 


the  accused  before  starting  the  proceedings  of 
confession.  But  PW-103,  when  appeared  in  the 
witness  box,  categorically  deposed  that  when  the 
accused  was  produced  before  him  in  the  court,  he 
explained  him  that  he  is  working  as  Metropolitan 
Magistrate  and  then  questioned  him  about  his  state 
of  mind  etc.  and  his  willingness  to  make  the 
confession . 

643.  Thus,  simply  because  of  the  fact  that  this 
fact  is  not  brought  on  record,  in  black  &  white,  is 
not  sufficient  to  say  that  the  accused  was  not 
knowing  that  he  is  being  produced  before  the 
Magistrate,  specially,  when  PW-103  has  also  stated 
that  the  accused  was  produced  in  the  court  room  and 
after  asking  everybody  to  go  out,  he  questioned  the 
accused.  Thus,  this  is  no  ground  to  discard  the 
confession  recorded  by  PW-103  or  to  say  that  it  is 
not  voluntarily  suffered. 

644.  The  next  plea  on  which  the  confession  was 
challenged  by  learned  defence  counsel  was  that  in 
Sarwan  Singh's  case  (Supra), it  was  settled  by  the 
Hon'ble  High  Court  that  in  every  case  of  recording 
of  confession,  the  Magistrate  is  required  to  put 
the  question  prescribed  under  the  High  Court  Rules 
and  Orders,  as  per  the  requirement  of  Sub  Section  3 
of  Section  164  of  the  Cr.P.C  and  if  those 
prescribed  questions  have  not  been  put  to  the 
accused  and  the  confession  is  recorded  directly,  it 


581 


makes  the  confession  highly  doubtful  and 
involuntary.  This  very  principle  was  again 
reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Dagdu  Vs. 
State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR,  1977,  Supreme  Court, 
1579,  and  Ayub  Vs.   State  of  U.P's  case   (Supra) . 

645.  He  further  submitted  that  in  the  present 
case,  as  is  clear  from  the  proceedings  of  the 
confession,  no  question,  what  to  talk  of  the 
prescribed  questions  as  per  the  High  Court  Rules  & 
Orders  of  Punjab  &  Haryana,  has  been  put  to  the 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  by  PW-103  before  recording 
his  confession.  As  such,  failure  to  comply  with 
Section  164  Sub  Section  (3)  Cr.P.C,  will  render  the 
confession  inadmissible. 

646.  However,  after  going  through  the  case  law 
relied  upon  by  both  the  parties  on  this  aspect,  it 
comes  out  that  as  submitted  by  learned  Public 
Prosecutor,  in  the  present  case,  PW-103  has 
complied  with  the  provisions  of  Section  164  Sub 
Section  3  of  the  Cr.P.C  by  holding  a  preliminary 
enquiry  with  an  object  to  obtain  an  assurance  of 
the  fact  that  the  confession  is  not  caused  by 
inducement,  threat  or  promise  or  under  force  or 
compulsion . 

647.  Above  all,  the  High  Court  Rules  &  Orders 
of  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  are  not  applicable 
in     the     State     of     Delhi     nor     any     such    Rules  or 


582 


Directions,  if  issued,  by  the  Hon'ble  Delhi  High 
Court  have  been  brought  on  record.  At  the  same  time 
PW-103  has  specifically  deposed  that  before 
recording  the  confession  of  the  accused,  he  put 
specific  questions  to  the  accused  to  know  that  the 
accused  is  not  under  any  threat,  fear  or  pressure 
to  make  the  confession  and  that  he  was  fully 
knowing  that  the  confession,  if  made,  can  be  used 
against  him.  In  this  regard  as  deposed  by  PW-103, 
no  doubt  he  has  not  conducted  the  preliminary 
enquiry  in  question  and  answer  form  but  as  is  clear 
from  the  proceedings  Ex.PW103/D,  Ex.PW103/E  and 
Ex.PW103/F,  he  had  incisively  questioned  the 
accused  and  explained  him  that  the  accused  was  not 
bound  to  make  the  confession  and  if  he  will  make, 
it  can  be  against  him  and  as  to  why  he  is  going  to 
make  the  confession  and  that  had  there  been  any 
pressure,  threat,  advise  or  inducement  by  the 
Police  to  make  the  confession. 

648.  At    the    same    time,    during    his  testimony, 

PW-103  has  further  deposed  that  in  the  application, 
Ex.PW103/A,  it  was  already  mentioned  that  the 
accused  was  arrested  on  11.12.1995  and  he  was 
produced  before  the  A.C.M.M  on  15.12.1995  and  after 
that  he  questioned  the  accused  about  the  relevant 
facts  and  also  granted  him  a  time  of  four  hours  to 
re-consider  his  intention  and  even  after  that,  he 
again  questioned  the  accused  and  when  the  accused 
was    fully  prepared   to   make    the    confession  without 


583 


any  fear  or  compulsion  and  with  his  free  will,  the 
same  was  recorded  by  him. 

649.  A  perusal  of  the  preliminary  enquiry, 
Ex.PW103/D  and  PW103/E,  shows  that  the  accused  was 
informed  that  he  is  not  bound  to  make  the 
confession  and  if  he  will  make,  it  will  go  against 
him  and  why  he  is  making  the  confession.  It  was 
also  mentioned  that  the  accused  was  physically  fit 
and  there  was  no  apparent  mark  of  injury  on  his 
person  and  he  had  a  good  sleep  on  the  night  of 
15.12.1995  and  have  his  break  fast. 

650.  Despite  this,  though  PW-103  was  satisfied 
that  the  accused  is  mentally  and  physically  fit  and 
going  to  make  the  confession  voluntarily,  a  period 
of  four  hours  was  given  to  the  accused  to 
reconsider  his  desire.  And  after  four  hours,  PW-103 
has  conducted  a  similar  enquiry  and  even  the 
accused  was  explained  that  after  making  the 
confession,  he  can  not  retract  from  the  same  and  it 
was  also  explained  to  him  that  he  will  not  be 
handed  over  to  the  CBI,  even  if  he  does  not  make 
any  statement.  But  he  can  not  retract  from  the 
confession,  if  made,  but  still  the  accused 
expressed  his  desire  to  make  the  confession. 

651.  Thus,  PW-103  was  fully  satisfied,  as  per 
the  precautions  and  guidelines  laid  down  by  the 
Hon'ble   Apex   Court,    that   accused   is    free    from  any 


584 


type  of  pressure,  threat  or  inducement  and  if  it  is 
so,  both  the  authorities  relied  upon  by  the  defence 
are  not  applicable  to  the  facts  in  hand  because  in 
Dadgu's  case  (Supra),  before  recording  the 
confession  of  accused,  the  Magistrate  made  no 
efforts  to  ascertain  from  the  accused  whether  he  is 
making  the  confession  voluntarily  without  any 
inducement  or  threat  by  the  Police  and  had  not 
granted  any  time  to  the  accused  for  reflection  and 
on  those  facts,  it  was  held  that  it  is  not  true 
compliance  of  Section  164  Sub  Section  (3)  of  the 
Cr.P.C. 

652.  Similar    were    the    facts    in    Sarwan '  s  case 

(Supra) ,  as  mentioned  above  while  considering  the 
affect  of  custody  of  the  accused  before  his 
confession.  At  the  same  time  in  Ayub '  s  case 
(Supra) ,  the  confession  involved  was  under  the 
provision  of  Section  15  of  TADA  Act,  which  stands 
on  different  footing  than  a  confession  u/s  164 
Cr.P.C  and  as  such  all  the  authorities  are  of  no 
help  to  the  defence. 

653.  Similarly,  a  suggestion  put  to  PW-103 
that  the  accused  was  tortured  and  forced  to  make 
the  confession,  was  vehemently  denied  by  the 
witness,  which  shows  that  the  plea  of  learned 
defence  counsel  that  the  accused  was  tortured  and 
pressurized  to  suffer  this  confession  is  also 
without   any  basis   as   no   such  plea  was   put  forward 


585 


by  the  accused  when  he  was  questioned  by  PW-103  in 
this  regard. 

654.  In  Vidya  Wati  Vs.  State,  AIR  1951, 
Himachal  Pradesh,  page  82,  the  Hon'ble  Himachal 
Pardesh  High  Court  held  that  where  there  is 
evidence  that  the  accused  was  tortured  and  forced 
to  make  the  confession,  the  same  is  not  admissible 
in  evidence.  However,  in  this  case,  there  is  no 
such  evidence.  As  such,  this  authority  is  no  help 
to  the  applicant. 

655.  One  more  plea  raised  by  learned  defence 
counsel,  to  say  that  the  confession  of  accused 
Shamsher  Singh  was  not  voluntary,  is  that  it  is 
admitted  case  of  PW-103  that  the  accused  disclosed 
to  him  that  he  is  going  to  suffer  the  confession 
due  to  compulsion  so  that  he  might  not  be 
implicated  otherwise  and  it  shows  that  the 
confession  of  accused  was  not  voluntarily  but  it 
was  under  the  compulsion  and  thus  not  reliable. 
However,  after  going  through  the  case  law  relied 
upon  by  learned  defence  counsel  on  this  aspect,  it 
comes  out  that  this  fact  is  not  disclosed  by  the 
accused  in  the  sense  interpreted  by  learned  defence 
counsels . 

656.  In  Raja  Khima  Vs.  State  of  Saurashtra  , 
AIR,  1956,  Supreme  Court,  page  217,  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  held  that  "a  confession  can  not  be  used 


586 


against  an  accused  person  unless  the  Court  is 
satisfied  that  it  was  voluntary  and  while  the  Court 
is  considering  this  guestion,  the  guestion  whether 
it  is  true  or  false  does  not  arise.  It  is  abhorrent 
to  notions  of  justice  and  fair  play,  and  is  also 
dangerous  to  allow  a  man  to  be  convicted  on  the 
strength  of  a  confession  unless,  it  is  made 
voluntarily  and  unless  he  realises  that  anything  he 
says  may  be  used  against  him  and  any  attempt  by  a 
person  in  authority  to  bully  a  person  into  making  a 
confession  or  any  threat  or  coercion  would  at  once 
invalidate  if  it  the  fear  was  still  operating  on 
his  mind  at  the  time  he  makes  the  confession  and  if 
it  would  appear  to  him  reasonable  for  supposing 
that  by  making  it  he  would  gain  any  advantage  or 
avoid  any  evil  of  a  temporal  nature  in  reference  to 
the  proceedings  against  him." 


657.  However,    in  the  present  case,   a  perusal  of 

the  confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  shows  that 
he  has  nowhere  stated  that  he  is  making  the 
confession  under  some  compulsion  or  to  avoid  a  big 
evil  of  a  temporal  nature.  On  the  contrary,  he 
disclosed  that  he  is  a  religious  person  and  he  came 
in  contact  with  terrorists  as  he  was  also  having 
threat  to  his  life  from  terrorist  groups  and 
whatever  he  did  in  this  case  was  under  compulsion 
and  he  wants  to  make  a  statement  so  that  a  true 
story  should  come  out,  apprehending  that  otherwise 
other  witnesses  may  implicate  him  more  seriously. 


587 


658.  This  fact  clearly  shows  that  what  the 
accused  disclosed  to  the  Magistrate  was  that  he  is 
associated  in  this  case  in  one  manner  or  other  but 
it  was  due  to  some  compulsion  but  as  far  as  making 
of  confession  is  concerned,  he  discloses  that  he 
wants  to  make  the  confession  to  bring  the  true 
facts  on  the  record  so  that  his  role  should  not  be 
multiplied  by  the  other  witnesses  and  thus  by  no 
stretch  of  imagination,  it  can  be  said  that  the 
accused  was  making  the  confession  under  some 
compulsion  or  under  belief  that  by  making  it  he 
would  gain  any  advantage  or  avoid  any  evil  of 
temporal  nature.  Thus,  the  facts  of  the  present 
case  are  clearly  distinguishable  and  the  case  law 
relied  upon  is  not  applicable. 

659.  As  far  as  the  last  resort  of  the  learned 
defence  counsel  that  sufficient  time  was  not 
granted  to  the  accused  for  reflection  before 
recording  his  confession  which  makes  it 
inadmissible  and  was  rightly  retracted  by  this 
accused,  is  concerned,  again  there  is  no  force  in 
this  plea  also  because  it  is  proved  on  the  file 
that  PW-103  has  given  a  time  of  four  hours  to 
accused  Shamsher  Singh  for  reflection,  which,  in 
the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  was 
sufficient  and  reasonable. 

660.  As    to   whether   this    is    sufficient   time  or 


588 


not  is  concerned,  as  mentioned  earlier,  in 
Shankaria's  case  (Supra),  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
after  considering  the  Sarwan  Singh  Vs.  State  of 
Punjab's  case  (Supra),  held  that  there  is  no 
statutory  provision  in  Section  164  of  the  Cr.P.C  or 
else  where  that  there  should  be  an  interval  of  24 
hours  or  more,  between  the  preliminary  questioning 
of  the  accused  and  recording  of  confession  has  the 
only  requirement  of  the  law  is  that  the  Magistrate 
not  to  record  any  confession  unless  upon 
questioning  the  accused  making  it  he  has  reason  to 
believe  that  it  is  being  made  voluntarily.  And  in 
that  case  although  a  time  of  15  minutes  was  given 
to  the  accused  to  rethink,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
held  that  it  is  sufficient  to  see  that  the  mind  of 
the  accused  was  free  from  any  possible  influence  of 
the  Police. 

661.  Similarly   in   Sarwan   Singh's    case  (Supra, 

the  accused  had  visible  marks  of  injury  and  he  was 
in  the  prolonged  custody  of  the  police,  which  was 
also  unexplained  and  the  confession  of  the  accused 
was  recorded  immediately  on  his  production,  without 
questioning  him  and  without  giving  him  adequate 
time  to  reconsider  and  on  those  facts  the  same  was 
found  to  be  doubtful  but  in  this  case,  this  aspect 
has  already  been  discussed  and  held  to  be  not  as 
such.  If  it  is  so,  there  is  nothing  on  the  record 
to  show  that  PW-103  has  committed  any  material 
irregularity   or   violated   the    guidelines    laid  down 


589 


by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  before  recording  the 
confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh  which  makes  it 
inadmissible  in  evidence.  As  such,  this  plea  also 
proves  in  vain  to  say  that  there  is  any  flaw  or 
legal  infirmity  on  the  part  of  PW-103  in  recording 
the  confession  of  accused  Shamsher  Singh. 


662.  In     view     of     the     above     discussion,  the 

testimony  of  PW-103  remained  unrebutted  and  clearly 
spells  out  that  as  stated  by  PW-103,  the  confession 
of  accused  Shamsher  Singh,  Ex.PW103/G  is 
voluntarily  made  giving  the  details  of  the 
conspiracy  and  the  role  of  the  accused,  which  is 
clearly  admissible  against  accused  Shamsher  Singh 
subject  to  the  condition  that  there  must  be  a  broad 
and  general  corroboration  to  the  facts  disclosed  in 
the  confession,  which  will  be  taken  up  while 
discussing  the  evidentiary  value  of  the  confession 
of  the  accused  persons. 


663.  Having    thus    reached    a    finding    as    to  the 

voluntary  nature  of  confessions  of  all  the  three 
above  named  accused  persons,  let  us  test  the  truth 
of  the  confessions,  as  the  fact  that  the 
confessions  have  been  made  voluntary,  free  from 
threat  and  inducement,  cannot  be  regarded  as 
presumptive  evidence  of  its  truth.  And  there  may  be 
circumstances  to  indicate  that  the  confessions 
cannot  be  true  wholly  or  partly  in  which  case  it 
looses  much  of  its  evidentiary  value. 


590 


664.  In    order    to    be    assured    of    the    truth  of 

confessions,  let  us  scan  the  entire  evidence  of  the 
prosecution  and  compare  it  with  confessions  and  to 
look  for  corroboration.  But  as  far  as  the  nature  of 
corroboration  is  concerned,  as  per  the  legal 
position  discussed  above,  specially  in  Subramania  ' s 
case  supra,  it  should  not  be  meticulous  examination 
of  the  entire  material  particulars  and  it  is  enough 
that  there  is  broad  corroboration  in  conformity 
with  the  general  trend  of  the  confession  and  taken 
as  a  whole  it  fits  into  the  the  facts  proved  by  the 
evidence,   even  if  it  has  been  retracted  later  on. 


665.  In      substance,      the      court      should  have 

assurance  from  all  angles  that  the  retracted 
confession  was,  in  fact,  voluntary  and  it  must  have 
been  true.  But  it  does  not  necessarily  mean  that 
each  and  every  circumstance  mentioned  in  the 
confession  regarding  the  complicity  of  the  accused 
must  be  separately  and  independently  corroborated, 
nor  it  is  reguired  that  the  corroboration  must  come 
from  the  facts  and  circumstances  discovered  after 
the  confession  was  made. 


666.  Let    us    now    scrutinise    the    evidence  and 

other  facts  and  circumstances  to  lend  assurance  and 
general  corroboration  to  the  truth  of  confessions. 


667.  Before    considering    the    factual    aspect  of 

591 


the  evidence  let  us  consider  the  following  legal 
position  as  to  certain  legal  issues. 

1.  What  is  relevancy  of  disclosures  made 
under  section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act  and 
its  applicability  to  the  facts  of  the 
case  and  its  extent; 

2.  Relevancy  of  extra  judicial  confession 
and  its  evidentiary  value; 

3.  Use  of  retracted  confession  against 
the  co-accused; 

4 .  The  evidentiary  value  of  the  act  & 
conduct  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Balwant  Singh  after  commission  of 
this  offence  including  discovery  of  their 
abodes  and  hideouts  along  with  its 
identification  and  the  recoveries  made  on 
the  basis  of  disclosures  made  by  them; 

5.  The  relevancy  of  identification  of 
accused  persons  by  some  of  the  witnesses, 
on  the  basis  of  photo  graphs  shown  to 
them  during  the  investigations,  and  then 
their  identification  in  the  court. 


DISCLOSURE  STATEMENT  &  ITS  ADMISSIBILITY  AS 
PER  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  SECTION  27  OF  EVIDENCE 
ACT. 


668.  As    far   as    the      interpretation   of  Section 

27  of  the  Evidence  Act  is  concerned,  it  has  been 
agitated  by  the  learned  defence  counsel  that  all 
the  disclosure  statements  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecution  are  hit  by  the  provisions  of  Section 
27  of  the  Evidence  Act  as  no  material  fact  has  been 

592 


discovered 
statements 
made  by  the 


in     consequences     of  these 
even   if  those  are  presumed  to 
accused  persons  for  a  moment. 


disclosure 
have  been 


669.  Whereas  the  contentions  of  prosecution  are 

that  the  expression  'Discovery  of  fact'  should  be 
read  with  Section  3  of  the  Evidence  Act  which 
includes  recovery  of  plain  mental  fact  concerning 
the  informant  and  not  restricted  to  recovery  of 
material  object  as  alleged  by  defence  counsel. 


670.  As   such,    the   controversy  remains-  Whether 

the  application  of  the  Section  is  contingent  on 
the  recovery  of  a  physical  object  is  the  moot 
question.  Section  27  embodies  the  doctrine  of 
confirmation  by  subsequent  events.  The  fact 
investigated  and  found  by  the  police  consequent  to 
the  information  disclosed  by  the  accused  amounts  to 
confirmation  of  that  piece  of  information.  Only 
that  piece  of  information,  which  is  distinctly 
supported  by  confirmation,  is  rendered  relevant  and 
admissible  u/s  27. 


671.  The  other  question  is  the     physical  object 

might  have  already  been  recovered,  but  the 
investigating  agency  may  not  have  any  clue  as  to 
the  "state  of  things"  that  surrounded  the  physical 
object.  And  in  such  an  event,  if  upon  the 
disclosure  made,  such  state  of  things  or  facts 
within    his    knowledge    in    relation    to    a  physical 


593 


object  are  discovered,  whether  then  also,  it  can  be 
said  to  be  discovery  of  fact  within  the  meaning  of 
Section  27 . 


672.  The  above  said  issues  have  been  directly 

considered  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State  (NCT 
of   Delhi)    Versus   Navjot   Sandhu, 2005, Crl. L.J.  3950 

and  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  taken  into  consideration 
the  entire  case  law  held  that : - 


"The  physical  object  might  have  already 
been  recovered,  but  the  investigating 
agency  may  not  have  any  clue  as  to  the 
"state  of  things"  that  surrounded  that 
physical  object.  In  such  an  event, if  upon 
the  disclosure  made  such  state  of  things 
or  facts  within  his  knowledge  in  relation 
to  a  physical  object  are  discovered,  then 
also,  it  can  be  said  to  be  discovery  of 
fact  within  the  meaning  of  Section  27. 


"The  other  aspect  is  that  the 
pointing  out  of  a  material  object  by  the 
accused  himself  is  not  necessary  in  order 
to  attribute  the  discovery  to  him.  A 
person  who  makes  a  disclosure  may  himself 
lead  the  investigating  officer  to  the 
place  where  the  object  is  concealed.  That 
is  one  clear  instance  of  discovery  of 
fact.  But  the  scope  of  Section  27  is 
wider.  Even  if  the  accused  does  not  point 
out  the  place  where  the  material  object  is 
kept,  the  police, on  the  basis  of 
information  furnished  by  him,  may  launch 
an  investigation  which  confirms  the 
information  given  by  accused.  Even  in 
such  a  case,  the  information  furnished  by 
the  accused  becomes  admissible  against 
him  as  per  Section  27  provided  the 
correctness  of  information  is  confirmed 


594 


by  a  subsequent  step  in  investigation.  At 
the  same  time,  facts  discovered  as  a 
result  of  investigation  should  be  such  as 
are  directly  relatable  to  the 
information . " 


"We  have  noticed  above  that  the 
confessions  made  to  a  police  officer  and  a 
confession  made  by  any  person  while  he 
or  she  is  in  police  custody  can  not  be 
proved  against  that  person  accused  of  an 
offence.  Of  course, a  confession  made  in 
the  immediate  presence  of  a  Magistrate  can 
be  proved  against  him.  So  also  Section  162 
Cr.P.C  bars  the  reception  of  any 
statements  made  to  a  police  officer  in  the 
course  of  an  investigation  as  evidence 
against  the  accused  person  at  any  enquiry 
or  trial  except  to  the  extent  that  such 
statements  can  be  made  use    of    by  the 

accused  to  contradict  the  witnesses.  Such 
confessions  are  excluded  for  the  reason 
that  there  is  a  grave  risk  of  their 
statements  being  involuntary  and  false. 
Section  27,  which  unusually  starts  with 
a  proviso,  lifts  the  ban  against  the 
admissibility  of  the  confession/statement 
made  to  the  police  to  a  limited  extent  by 
allowing  proof  of  information  of  specified 
nature  furnished  by  the  accused  in  police 
custody.  In  that  sense  Section  27  is 
considered  to  be  an  exception  to  the  rules 
embodied  in  Sections  25  and  2  6." 


"The  history  of  case  law  on  the 
subject  of  confessions  under  Section  27 
unfolds  divergent  views  and  approaches . 
The  divergence  was  mainly  on  twin  aspects : 

(i)  Whether  the  facts  contemplated 
by  Section  27  are  physical,  material 
objects  or  the  mental  facts  of  which  the 
accused  giving  the  information  could  be 
said  to  be  aware  of.  Some  Judges  have  gone 
to  the       extent      of      holding      that  the 


595 


discovery  of  concrete  facts,  that  is  to 
say  material  objects,   which  can  be 

exhibited  in  the  Court  are  alone  covered 
by  Section  27.  (ii)  The  other  controversy 
was  on  the  point  regarding  the  extent  of 
admissibility  of  a  disclosure  statement. 
In  some  cases  a  view  was  taken  that  any 
information,  which  served  to  connect  the 
object  with  the  offence  charged,  was 
admissible  under  Section  27." 

"The  decision  of  the  Privy  Council  in 
Kotayya's  case  ,  AIR  1947  PC  67  which  has 
been  described  as  a  locus  classicus  had 
set  at  rest  much  of  the  controversy  that 
centered  round  the  interpretation  of 
Section  27.  To  a  great  extent  the  legal 
position  has  got  crystallized  with  the 
rendering  of  this  decision.  The  authority 
of  Privy  Council's  decision  has  not  been 
questioned  in  any  of  the  decisions  of 
the  highest  Court  either  in  the  pre  or 
post  independence  era.  Right  from 
1950s,  till  the  advent  of  the  new  century 
and  till  date,  the  passages  in  this  famous 
decision  are  being  approvingly  quoted  and 
reiterated  by  the  Judges  of  this  apex 
Court.  Yet,  there  remain  certain  grey 
areas  as  demonstrated  by  the  arguments 
advanced  on  behalf  of  the  State." 


673.  The  Hon'ble  Apex  court  then   laid  down  the 

requisite  conditions  of  this  dispute  in  following 
manner : 


"The  first  requisite  condition  for 
utilizing  Section  27  in  support  of  the 
prosecution  case  is  that  the  investigating 
police  officer  should  depose  that  he 
discovered  a  fact  in  consequence  of  the 
information      received      from      an  accused 


596 


person  in  police  custody.  Thus,  there  must 
be  a  discovery  of  fact  not  within  the 
knowledge  of  police  officer  as  a 
consequence  of  information  received.  Of 
course,  it  is  axiomatic  that  the 
information  or  disclosure  should  be  free 
from  any  element  of  closure  should  be  free 
from  any  element  of  compulsion.  The  next 
component  of  Section  27  relates  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  information  that  can 
be  proved.  It  is  only  so  much  of  the 
information  as  relates  distinctly  to  the 
fact  thereby  discovered  that  can  be  proved 
and  nothing  more.  It  is  explicitly 
clarified  in  the  Section  that  there  is  no 
taboo  against  receiving  such  information 
in  evidence  merely  because  it  amounts  to  a 
confession.  At  the  same  time,  the  last 
clause  makes  it  clear  that  it  is  not  the 
confessional  part  that  is  admissible  but 
it  is  only  such  information  or  part  of  it, 
which  relates  distinctly  to  the  fact 
discovered  by  means  of  the  information 
furnished.  Thus,  the  information  conveyed 
in  the  statement  to  Police  ought  to  be 
dissected  if  necessary  so  as  to  admit  only 
the  information  of  the  nature  mentioned 
in  the  Section.  The  rationale  behind  this 
provision  is  that,  if  a  fact  is  actually 
discovered  in  consequence  of  the 
information  supplied,  it  affords  some 
guarantee  that  the  information  is  true  and 
can  therefore  be  safely  allowed  to  be 
admitted  in  evidence  as  an  incriminating 
factor  against  the  accused." 


674.  Elucidating  the  scope  of  this  Section,  the 

Privy  Council  also  in  Pulukuri  Kottaya  and  others 
Vs.   Emperor,  AIR,   PC  18,   also  held  that : - 

"normally,     the     Section     is     brought  into 


597 


operation  when  a  person  in  police  custody 
produces  from  some  place  of  concealment, 
some  object,  such  as  a  dead  body,  a  weapon 
or  ornaments,  said  to  be  connected  with 
the  crime  of  which  the  informant  is  the 
accused . " 

675.  The  material  point  to  be  noted  is  that  the 
Privy  Council  rejected  the  argument  of  the  counsel 
appearing  for  the  Crown  that  the  fact  discovered  is 
the  physical  object  produced  and  that  any  and  every 
information  which  relates  distinctly  to  that 
object  can  be  proved.  Upon  this  view,  the 
information  given  by  a  person  that  the  weapon 
produced  is  the  one  used  by  him  in  the  commission 
of  the  murder  will  be  admissible  in  its  entirety. 

676.  While  defining  the  expression  'fact 
discovered'   their  Lordships  held  that : - 


"it  is  fallacious  to  treat  the  'fact 
discovered'  within  the  section  as 
equivalent  to  the  object  produced;  the 
fact  discovered  embraces  the  place  from 
which  the  object    is    produced    and  the 

knowledge  of  the  accused  as  to  this,  and 
the     information  given  must  relate 

distinctly  to  this  fact.  Information  as 
to  past  user,  or  the  past  history,  of  the 
object  produced  is  hot  related  to  its 
discovery  in  the  setting  in  which  it  is 
discovered.  Information  supplied  by  a 
person  in  custody  that  "I  will  produce  a 
knife  concealed  in  the  roof  of  my  house" 
does  not  lead  to  the  discovery  of  the 
fact  that  a  knife  is  concealed  in  the 
house  of  the  informant  to  his  knowledge, 
and   if    the    knife    is    proved   to    have  been 


598 


used  in  the  commission  of  the  offence, 
the  fact  discovered  is  very  relevant.  But 
if  to  the  statement  the  words  be  added 
"with  which  I  stabbed.  A"  these  words  are 
inadmissible  since  they  do  not  relate  to 
the  discovery  of  the  knife  in  the  house 
of  the  informant." 

677.  The  Hon'ble  Privy  Council  also  explained 
the  probative  force  of  the  information  made 
admissible  under  Section  27  in  the  following 
words : " 

"  Except      in      cases      in      which  the 

possession,  or  concealment,  of  an  object 
constitutes  the  gist  of  the  offence 
charged,  it  can  seldom  happen  that 
information  relating  to  the  discovery  of  a 
fact  forms  the  foundation  of  the 
prosecution  case.  It  is  only  one  link  in 
the  chain  of  proof,  and  the  other  links 
must  be  forged  in  manner  allowed  by  law." 

678.  In  paragraph  11,  their  Lordships  observed 
that  they  were  in  agreement  with  the  view  taken  by 
the  High  Courts  of  Lahore  and  Bombay  in  Sukhan  Vs. 
Emperor  (AIR  1929  Lahore  344)  and  Ganuchandra  Vs. 
Emperior  (AIR  1932  Bombay  286) .  The  contrary  view 
taken  by  the  Madras  High  Court  in  Attappa  Goundan 
Vs.  Emperor  (ILR  1937  Madras  695)  was  not  accepted 
by  the  Privy  Council. 

67  9.  In    Attappa    Goundan 's    case     (supra),  the 

Hon'ble  High  Court  held  that  part  of  the 
confessional  statement,  which  revealed  the 
connection  between  the  objects  produced  and  the 


599 


commission  of 
under  Section 
criticized  by 


murder    was  held 
27  in  its  entirety, 
the  Privy  Council. 


to  be  admissible 
This  approach  was 


680.  Similarly  Hon'ble  Madras  High  Court  in 
Emperor  Vs.  Ramanuja  Ayyangar  (AIR  1935  Madras 
528),  disagreed  with  the  view  taken  in  Sukhan ' s 
case  (supra)  that  the  expression  'fact'  in  Section 
27  should  be  restricted  to  material  objects  or 
something  which  can  be  exhibited  as  material 
object.  It  was  held  that  the  facts  need  not  be 
self -probatory  and  the  word  'fact'  as  contemplated 
by  Section  27  is  not  limited  to  "actual  physical 
material  object".  Emphasis  was  laid  on  the  wording 
'any  fact'.  In  this  respect,  the  view  taken  in 
Sukhan 's  case  (supra) was  dissented  from.  The 
minority  view  was  that  the  discovery  of  a  witness 
to  the  crime  or  the  fact  of  the  accused  in 
purchasing  the  incriminating  material  can  not  be 
proved  by  invoking  Section  27. 

681.  The  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State  Vs. 
Navjot's  case  supra  concluded  that : - 

"We  are  of  the  view  that  Kotayya's  case  is 
an  authority  for  the  proposition  that 
'discovery  of  fact'  can  not  be  equated  to 
the  object  produced  or  found.  It  is  more 
than  that.  The  discovery  of  fact  arises  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  the  information 
given  by  the  accused  exhibited  the 
knowledge  or  the  mental  awareness  of  the 
informant      as      to      its      existence      at  a 


600 


particular  place." 


"The  crux  of  the  ratio  in  Kotaya '  s  case 
was  explained  by  this  Court  in  State  of 
Maharashtra  Vs.  Damu.  Thomas  J.  observed 
that  "the  decision  of  the  Privy  Council  in 
Pulukuri  Kotayya  Vs.  Emperor  is  the  most 
quoted  authority  for  supporting  the 
interpretation  that  the  "fact  discovered: 
envisaged  in  the  section  embraces  the 
place  from  which  the  object  was  produced, 
the  knowledge  of  the  accused  as  to  it,  but 
the  information  given  must  relate 
distinctly  to  that  effect". 

682.  Similarly  in  Mohmed  Inayaltuallah  Vs.  The 
State  of  Maharashtra  (1976)  1  SCC  828)  ,  while 
clarifying  that  the  expression  "fact  discovered"  in 
Section  27  is  not  restricted  to  a  physical  or 
material  fact  which  can  be  perceived  by  the  senses, 
and  that  it  does  include  a  mental  fact,  explained 
the  meaning  by  giving  the  gist  of  what  was  laid 
down  in  Pulukuri  Kotayya 's  case.  The  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  held  that : - 

"Now  it  is  fairly  settled  that  the 
expression  "fact  discovered"  includes  not 
only  the  physical  object  produced,  but 
also  the  place  from  which  it  is  produced 
and  the  knowledge  of  the  accused  as  to 
this." 

683.  So  also  in  Udai  Bhan  Vs.  State  of  Uttar 
Pradesh  (AIR  1962  SC  1116) ,  after  referring  to 
Kotayya ' s  case  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  stated  the 
legal  position  as  follows :- 


601 


"A  discovery  of  a  fact  includes  the  object 
found,    the  place  from  which  it  is  produced 
and    the  knowledge  of  the  accused  as  to 
its  existence." 

684.  There  is  almost  a  direct  decision  of  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  on  the  point  raised  and  disputed 
by  learnd  defence  councel  and  in  which  the 
connotation  of  the  expression  "fact  occurring  in 
Section  27  was  explored  and  a  view  similar  to 
Sukhan's  case  was  taken  on  the  supposition  that 
the  said  view  was  approved  by  the  Privy  Council  in 
Kotayya's  case. 

685.  That  decision  is  Himachal  Pradesh 
Administration  Vs.    Om  Prakash    (1972)    1   SCC     24  9)  . 

In  that  case,  on  the  basis  of  information  furnished 
by  the  accused  to  the  Police  Officer  that  he  had 
purchased  the  weapon  from  a  witness  and  that  he 
would  take  the  police  to  him,  the  Police  went  to 
the  Thari  of  PW11  where  the  accused  pointed  out 
PW11  to  the  Police.  It  was  contended  on  behalf  of 
the  accused  that  the  information  that  he  purchased 
the  dagger  from  PW11  followed  by  his  leading  the 
Police  to  the  Thari  and  pointing  him  out  was 
inadmissible  under  Section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act. 
This  argument  was  accepted.  And  it  was  held  by 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  that : - 

"In     our     view     there     is     force     in  this 


602 


contention.  A  fact  discovered  within  the 
meaning  of  Section  27  must  refer  to  a 
material  fact  to  which  the  information 
directly  relates.  In  order  to  render  the 
information  admissible  the  fact  discovered 
must  be  relevant  and  must  have  been  such 
that  it  constitutes  the  information 
through  which  the  discovery  was  made. 
What  is  the  fact  discovered  in  this 
case?  Not  the  dagger  but  the  dagger  hid 
under  the  stone  which  is  not  known  to  the 
Police . 

686.  Not    even    this    latestly    the    Hon'ble  Apex 

Court  in  An tar  Singh  Vs.  State  of  Raj as than, 
2004 (10) , SCC, 657 ,  again  reconsidered  the  entire  law 
on  this  aspect  summed  up  the  legal  principles  as 
follows : - 

(1)  The  fact  of  which  evidence  is  sought 
to  be  given  must  be  relevant  to  the 
issue.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  provision  has  nothing  to  do  with 
question  of  relevancy.  The  relevancy 
of  thefact  discovered  must  be 
established  according  to  the 
prescriptions  relating  to  relevancy 
of  other  evidence  connecting  it  with 
the  crime  in  order  to  make  the  fact 
discovered  admissible. 

(2)  The  fact  must  have  been  discovered. 


603 


(3)  The  discovery  must  have  been  in 
consequence  of  some  information 
received  from  the  accused  and  not  by 
accused's  own  act. 


(4)  The    persons    giving    the  information 
must  be  accused  of  any  offence. 

(5)  He    must    be     in     the     custody    of  a 
police  officer. 


(6) The  discovery  of  a  fact  in 
consequence  of  information  received 
from  an  accused  in  custody  must  be 
deposed  to. 


(7)  Thereupon  only  that  portion  of  the 
information  which  relates  distinctly 
or  strictly  to  the  fact. 


687.  Similarly  the   above   settled  principles  of 

law  was  again  reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
in  Geejaganda  Somaiah  Vs.  State  of  Karnataka 
reported    in    JT    2007     (4)     SC,     page    380     in  the 

following  words : - 


"For  the  applicability  of  Section  27  of 
the  Evidence  Act  two  conditions  are  pre- 
requisite, viz.,  (i)  information  must  be 
such  as  has  caused  discovery  of  the  fact, 
and  (ii)  the  information  must  'relate 
distinctly'    to   the   fact   discovered.  Under 


604 


Section  27  only  so  much  of  the  information 
as  distinctly  relates  to  the  fact  really 
thereby  discovered,  is  admissible.  While 
deciding  the  applicability  of  Section  27 
of  the  Evidence  Act,  the  Court  has  also  to 
keep  in  mind  the  nature  of  presumption 
under  illustration  (a)  to  (s)  of  Section 
114  of  the  Evidence  Act.  The  court  can, 
therefore,  presume  the  existence  of  a  fact 
which  it  thinks  likely  to  have  happened, 
regard  being  had  to  the  common  course  of 
natural  events,  human  conduct  and  public 
and  private  business,  in  their  relations 
to  the  facts  of  the  particular  case." 

ADMISSIBILITY  OF  EXTRA  JUDICIAL  CONFESSION 


688.  As    far   as    the    legal   position   relating  to 

the   relevancy  of  extra   judicial   confession  and  how 
it    is    to    be    proved,     is    concerned,     in    State  of 
Rajasthan   Vs.    Raja   Ram,V    (2003)    SLT  45-111(2003) 
CCR  189   (SC)-2003  8  SCC  180,   it  was  held  that 

"An  extra  judicial  confession,  if 
voluntary  and  true  and  made  in  a  fit  state 
of  mind,  can  be  relied  upon  by  the  Court. 
The  confession  will  have  to  be  proved  like 
any  other  fact.  The  value  of  the  evidence 
as  to  confession,  like  any  other  evidence, 
depends  upon  the  veracity  of  the  witness 
to  whom  it  has  been  made.  The  value  of  the 
evidence  as  to  the  confession  depends  on 
the  reliability  of  the  witness  who  gives 
the  evidence.  It  is  not  open  to  any  Court 
to  start  with  a  presumption  that  extra 
judicial  confession  is  a  weak  type  of 
evidence.  It  would  depend  on  the  nature  of 
the  circumstances,  the  tie  when  the 
confession  was  made  and  the  credibility  of 
the  witnesses  who  speak  to  such  a 
confession.      Such     a     confession     can  be 


605 


relied  upon  and  conviction  can  be  founded 
thereon  if  the  evidence  about  the 
confession  comes  from  the  mouth  of 
witnesses  who  appear  to  be  unbiased,  not 
even  remotely  inimical  to  the  accused,  and 
i  respect  of  whom  nothing  is  brought  out 
which  may  tend  to  indicate  that  he  may 
have  a  motive  of  attributing  an  untruthful 
statement  to  the  accused,  the  words  spoken 
to  by  the  witness  are  clear,  unambiguous 
and  unmistakably  convey  that  the  accused 
is  the  perpetrator  of  the  crime  and 
nothing  is  omitted  by  the  witness  which 
may  militate  against  it.  After  subjecting 
the  evidence  of  the  witness  to  a  rigorous 
test  on  the  touchstone  of  credibility  , 
the  extra  judicial  confession  can  be  the 
basis  of  a  conviction  if  it  passes  the 
test  of  credibility." 

It  was  further  observed  : 

"20.  If  the  evidence  relating  to  extra 
judicial  confession  is  found  credible 
after  being  tested  on  the  touchstone  of 
credibility  and  acceptability,  it  can 
solely  form  the  basis  of  conviction  .  The 
requirement  of  corroboration  as  rightly 
submitted  by  the  learned  Counsel  for  the 
respondent-accused,  is  a  matter  of 
prudence  and  not  an  invariable  rule  of 
law" 


68  9.  In  the  case  of  Gagan  Kanojia  and  Anr.  Vs. 

State  of  Punjab,  IX  (2006)  SLT  406=  (2007)  CR  89 
(SC)=Criminal   Appeal    Nos. 561-62    and    563    of  2005, 

decided  on  24.11.2006  ,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
opined : 

"Extra- Judicial     confession     as      is  well 


606 


known,  can  form  the  basis  of  a  conviction. 
By  way  of  abundant  caution, however  the 
Court  may  look  for  some  corroboration. 
Extra  judicial  confession  can  not  ipso 
facto  be  termed  to  be  tainted.  An  extra- 
judicial confession,  if  made  voluntarily 
and  proved  can  be  relied  upon  by  the 
Courts . " 

690.  Similarly  in  Nazir  Khan  &  Others  Vs.  State 
of  Delhi,  V  (2003)  SLT  14-111  (2003)  CCR  173 
(SC)=106    (2003)    DLT    70(SC)=    2003    8    SCC    461,  the 

Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that: 

"A  free  and  voluntary  confession  is 
deserving  of  the  highest  credit , because 
it  is  presumed  to  flow  from  the  highest 
sense  of  guilty" 

691.  Similarly   in   State   of  Rajasthan  Vs  Kashi 
Ram,    1    (2007)    SLT    125=1    (2007)    CCR   167  (SC)=2006 
(11) SCALE     440,     wherein     the     Hon'ble     Apex  Court 
observed  that: 

"There  was  nothing  to  show  that  he  had 
reasons  to  confide  in  them.  The  evidence 
appeared  to  be  unnatural  and 
unbelievable.  The  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
observed  that  evidence  of  extra  judicial 
confession  is  a  weak  piece  of  evidence 
and  though  it  is  possible  to  base  a 
conviction  on  the  basis  of  an  extra 
judicial  confession,  the  confessional 
evidence  must  be  proved  like  any  other 
fact  and  the  value  thereof  depended  upon 
the  veracity  of  the  witnesses  to  whom  it 
was  made . " 


607 


692.  Similarly     in    Kishore     Chand  Vs.Himachal 

Pradesh,    AIR    1990    Supreme    Court,    page    2140  the 

Hon'ble  Apex  Court  again  reiterated  the  same 
principle  and  held  as  under: 


"An  unambiguous  extra-judicial  confession 
assesses  high  probative  value  force  as  it 
emanates  from  the  person  who  committed 
the  crime  and  is  admissible  in  evidence 
provided  is  free  from  suspicion  and 
suggestion  of  its  falsity.  But  in  the 
process  of  the  proof  of  the  alleged 
confession  the  Court  has  to  be  satisfied 
that  it  is  a  voluntary  one  and  does  not 
appear  to  be  result  of  inducement,  threat 
or  promise  envisaged  under  S.24  or  was 
brought  about  in  suspicious  circumstances 
to  circumstance  Ss.25  and  26.  Therefore, 
the  Court  has  to  look  into  the 
surrounding  circumstances  and  to  find 
whether  the  extra  judicial  confession  is 
not  inspired  by  any  improper  or 
collateral  consideration  or  circumvention 
of  the  law  suggesting  that  i  may  not  be 
true  one.  For  this  purpose  the  Court  must 
scrutinize  all  the  relevant  facts  such  as 
the  person  to  whom  the  confession  is 
made,  the  time  and  place  of  making  it, the 
circumstances  in  which  it  was  made  and 
finally  the  actual  words  used  by  the 
accused.  Extra-judicial  confession  if 
found  to  be  voluntary  can  be  relied  upon 
by  the  Court  along  with  other  evidence  on 
record.  Therefore,  even  the  extra 
judicial  confession  will  also  have  to  be 
proved  like  any  other  fact.  Th  value  of 
the  evidence  as  to  the  confession  depends 
upon  the  veracity  of  the  witness  to  whom 
it  is  made  and  the  circumstances  in  which 
it  came  to  be  made  and  the  actual  words 
used   by    the    accused.    Some    times    it  may 


608 


not  be  possible  to  the  witness  to 
reproduce  the  actual  words  in  which  the 
confession  was  made.  For  that  reason  the 
law  insists  on  recording  the  statement  by 
a  Judicial  Magistrate  after  administering 
all  necessary  warnings  to  the  accused 
that  it  would  be  used  as  evidence  against 
him." 


6  93.  Recently,    in  Kulwinder  Singh  Vs.    State  of 

Punjab,  II  (2007)  SLT  225=Criminal  Appeal  No. 675  of 
2006.  decided  on  5.12.2006,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
held  that: 

"the  evidentiary  value  of  an  extra 
judicial  confession  must  be  judged  in  the 
fact  situation  obtaining  in  each  case.  It 
would  depend  not  only  on  the  nature  of 
the  circumstances  but  also  the  time  when 
the  confession  had  been  made  and  the 
credibility  of  the  witness  who  testifies 
thereto . " 

694.  The  above  discussed  legal  principles  were 
also  reiterated  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  a  most 
recent  case  Aloke  Nath  Dutta  &  Ors  Vs.  State  of 
West  Bengal  CCR  2007  S.C,  391. 

IDENTIFICATION  OF  ACCUSED  BY 
PHOTOGRAPHS  DURING  INVESTIGATIONS 
AND  THEN  IN  THE  COURT  AND  ITS 
RELEVANCY  IN  COURT,  WHEN  NO  TEST 
IDENTIFICATION  IS  CONDUCTED 

695.  As  far  as  the  principle  as  to  the  value  of 
the  identification  of  a  person  on  the  basis  of 
photographs   by   a   witness    during    the  investigation 

609 


and  then  before  the  court,  without  there  being  a 
test  identification  parade,  is  concerned,  this 
question  is  considered  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in 
Malkhan  Singh  &  others  Vs .   State  of  Madhya  Pradesh 

where  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  laid  down  that : - 

"it  is  trite  to  say  that  the  substantive 
evidence  is  the  evidence  of  identification 
in  court.  Apart  from  the  clear  provisions 
of  section  9  of  the  Evidence  Act,  the 
position  in  law  is  well  settled  by  a 
catena  of  decisions  of  this  Court.  The 
facts,  which  establish  the  identity  of  the 
accused  persons,  are  relevant  under 
Section  9  of  the  Evidence  Act.  As  a 
general  rule,  the  substantive  evidence  of 
a  witness  is  the  statement  made  in  court. 
The  evidence  of  mere  identification  of  the 
accused  person  at  the  trial  for  the  first 
time  is  from  its  very  nature  inherently  of 
a  weak  character.  The  purpose  of  a  prior 
test  identification,  therefore,  is  to  test 
and  strengthen  the  trustworthiness  of  that 
evidence.  It  is  accordingly  considered  a 
safe  rule  of  prudence  to  generally  look 
for  corroboration  of  the  sworn  testimony 
of  witnesses  in  court  as  to  the  identity 
of  the  accused  who  are  strangers  to 
them, in  the  form  of  earlier  identification 
proceedings.  This  rule  of  prudence, 
however,  is  subject  to  exceptions,  when, 
for  example,  the  court  is  impressed  by  a 
particular  witness  on  whose  testimony  it 
can  safely  rely,  without  such  or  other 
corroboration.  The  identification  parades 
belong  to  the  stage  of  investigation,  and 
there  is  no  provision  in  the  Code  of 
Criminal  Procedure,  which  obliges  the 
investigating  agency  to  hold,  or  confers  a 
right  upon  the  accused  to  claim,  a  test 
identification  parade.  They  do  not 
constitute   substantive   evidence   and  these 


610 


parades  are  essentially  governed  by 
section  162  of  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Pr4ocedure.  Failure  to  hold  a  test 
identification  parade  would  not  make 
inadmissible  the  evidence  of 

identification  in  court.  The  weight  to  be 
attached  to  such  identification  should  be 
a  matter  for  the  courts  of  fact." 

696.  Similarly     in     Suresh    Chandra    Bahri  Vs. 
State  of  Bihar,    1995  Supp.    (1)    SCC  80:    1994  (3)RCR 
(Cr) .    (SC)   the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that : - 

"it  is  well  settled  that  substantive 
evidence  of  the  witness  is  the  evidence 
in  the  court  but  when  the  accused  person 
is  not  previously  known  to  the  witness 
concerned  then  identification  of  the 
accused  by  the  witness  soon  after  his 
arrest  is  of  great  importance  because  it 
furnishes  an  assurance  that  the 
investigation  is  proceedings  on  right 
lines  in  addition  to  furnishing 
corroboration  of  the  evidence  to  be  given 
by  the  witness  later  in  court  at  the 
trial.  From  this  point  of  view  it  is  a 
matter  of  great  importance  for  the 
investigating  agency  and  for  the  accused 
and  a  fortiori  for  the  proper 
administration  of  justice  that  such 
identification  is  held  without  avoidable 
and  unreasonable  delay  after  the  arrest 
of  the  accused.  It  is  in  adopting  this 
course  alone  that  justice  and  fair  play 
can  be  assured  both  to  the  accused  as 
well  as  to  the  prosecution. 

697.  Thereafter  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  further 
observed : - 

"But    the    position    may    be    different  when 


611 


the  accused  or  a  culprit  who  stands  trial 
had  been  seen  not  once  but  for  quite  a 
number  of  times  at  different  point  of  time 
and  places  which  fact  may  do  away  with  the 
necessity  of  a  TI  parade." 

698.  Similarly  the  Hon'ble  apex  Court  in  Umar 
Abdul  Shakur  Versus  Intelligence  Officer,  NCB,  AIR 
1999  SC,  page  2562,  the  Hon'ble  apex  Court  further 
held  that : - 

"there  is  no  legal  provision  which 
inhibits  the  identification  of  an  accused 
by  photo  graphs  and  the  law  laid  down  by 
the  Hon'ble  High  Court  in  Kartar  Singh 
Vs.  State  of  Punjab,  1994  Crl.Law 
Journal,  page  3139  which  struck  down 
Section  20  of  the  TADA  Act  ,  1987  was 
also  clarified  that  identification  of  an 
accused  only  on  the  basis  of  photo  graph 
as  provided  u/s  22  of  the  TADA  Act  is  bad 
but  if  a  witness  appears  in  the  witness 
box  during  the  trial  and  correctly 
identify  the  accused  then  the  court  take 
into  consideration  the  fact  that  during 
the  investigations  the  photo  graph  of  the 
accused  was  shown  to  the  witness  and  he 
identified  that  person  as  the  one  whom  he 
saw  at  the  relevant  time  and  in  those 
cases  the  identification  based  on  the 
photo  graphs  when  corroborated  by 
substantiated  evidence  makes  it  as 
admissible  in  evidence." 

699.  Even  in  D.  Gopal  Krishanan  Versus  Sadanand 
Nayak,     AIR    2004,     Supreme    Court,     page    4965,  an 

authority  relied  upon  by  the  defence,  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  held  that : - 


612 


"there  are  no  statutory  guidelines  in  the 
matter  of  showing  photographs  to  the 
witnesses  during  the  stage  of 
investigation.  But  nevertheless,  the 
police  is  entitled  to  show  photo  graphs  to 
confirm  whether  the  investigation  is  going 
on  in  the  right  direction.  During  the 
course  of  the  investigation.  If  the 
witness  had  given  the  identifying  features 
of  the  assailants,  the  same  could  be 
confirmed  by  the  Investigating  Officer  by 
showing  the  photographs  of  the  suspect  and 
the  Investigating  Officer  shall  not  first 
show  a  single  photographs  but  should  show 
more  than  one  photograph  of  the  same 
person,  if  available.  If  the  suspect  is 
available  for  identification  or  for  video 
identification,  the  photo  graph  shall 
never  be  shown  to  the  witness  in  advance." 


700.  Similarly  in  Amit  Singh  Bhimamsing  Thakur 

Versus  State  of  Maharashtra  reported  in  1  (  2007) 
Current   Criminal   Reports,    Vol.1,    page      221    (SC)  , 

the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  again  reiterated  that : - 

"It  is  trite  to  say  that  the  substantive 
evidence  is  the  evidence  of  identification 
in  Court.  Apart  from  the  clear  provisions 
of  Section  9  of  the  Evidence  Act,  the 
position  in  law  is  well  settled  by  a 
catena  of  decisions  of  this  Court.  The 
facts,  which  establish  the  identity  of  the 
accused  persons,  are  relevant  under 
Section  9  of  the  Evidence  Act.  As  a 
general  rule,  the  substantive  evidence  of 
a  witness  is  the  statement  made  in  Court. 
The  evidence  of  mere  identification  of  the 
accused  person  at  the  trial  for  the  first 
time  is  from  its  very  nature  inherently  of 


613 


a  weak  character.  The  purpose  of  a  prior 
test  identification,  therefore,  is  to  test 
and  strengthen  the  trustworthiness  of  that 
evidence.  It  is  accordingly  considered  a 
safe  rule  of  prudence  to  generally  look 
for  corroboration  of  the  sworn  testimony 
of  witnesses  in  Court  as  to  the  identity 
of  the  accused  who  are  strangers  to  them, 
in  the  form  of  earlier  identification 
proceedings.  Thus  rule  of  prudence, 
however,  is  subject  to  exceptions,  when, 
for  example,  the  Court  is  impressed  by  a 
particular  witness  on  whose  testimony  it 
can  safely  rely,  without  such  or  other 
corroboration.  The  identification  parades 
belongs  to  the  stage  of  investigation,  and 
there  is  no  provision  in  the  Code  which 
obliges  the  investigating  agency  to  hold 
or  confers  a  right  upon  the  accused  to 
claim,  a  test  identification  parade.  They 
do  not  constitute  substantive  evidence  and 
these  parades  are  essentially  governed  by 
Section  162  of  the  Code.  Failure  to  hold  a 
test  identification  parade  would  not  make 
inadmissible  the  evidence  of 

identification  in  Court.  The  weight  to  be 
attached  to  such  identification  should  be 
a  matter  for  the  Courts  of  fact.  In 
appropriate  cases  it  may  accept  the 
evidence  of  identification  even  without 
insisting  on  corroboration." 

701.  Not  even  this  in  Laxmi  Pat  Choraria  Versus 

Stat  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1968,  Supreme  Court,  page 
938,  an  authority  relied  upon  by  the  defence,  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  again  while  deciding  the 
question  of  identity  by  photo  graphs  of  accused 
persons  held  that : - 

"Showing  of  a  large  number  of  a  photo 
graphs    to    the    witness    and    asking    him  to 


614 


pick  out  that  of  the  suspect  is  proper 
procedure  but  showing  a  photo  graph  and 
asking  the  witness  whether  it  is  the 
offender  is  improper.  And  showing  the 
photo  graph  of  the  suspect  before 
identification  makes  the  identification 
worthless . 

702.  Similarly  in  Ravindra  alias  Ravi  Bansi 
Gohar  Vs  State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1998,  Supreme 
Court,  3031  it  was     settled  that : - 

"Identification  parades  are  held 
ordinarily  at  the  instance  of  the 
investigating  officer  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  the  witnesses  to  identify  either 
the  properties  which  are  the  subject 
matter  of  alleged  offence  or  the  persons 
who  are  alleged  to  have  been  invoked  in 
the  offence.  Such  tests  or  parades,  in 
ordinary  course,  belong  to  investigation 
stage  and  they  serve  to  provide  the 
investigating  authorities  with  material 
to  assure  themselves  if  the  investigation 
is  proceeding  on  right  lines.  In  other 
words,  it  is  through  these  identification 
parades  that  the  investigating  agency  is 
required  to  ascertain  whether  the  persons 
whom  they  suspect  to  have  committed  the 
offence  were  the  real  culprits." 

703.  Similarly  in  Ramanbhai  Naranhai  Patel  and 
others  Versus   State  of  Gujarat    (2000)    1   SCC,  358, 

the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  laid  down  that: 

"Failure  to  hold  test  identification 
parade,  which  should  be  held  with 
reasonable  despatch,  does  not  make  the 
evidence      of      identification      in  Court 


615 


inadmissible  rather  the  same  is  very  much 
admissible  in  law.  Question  is  what  is 
its  probative  value  ?  Ordinarily 
identification  of  an  accused  for  the 
first  time  in  court  by  a  witness  should 
not  be  relied  upon,  the  same  being  from 
its  very  nature,  inherently  of  a  weak 
character,  unless  it  is  corroborated  by 
his  previous  identification  in  the  test 
identification  parade  or  any  other 
evidence.  The  purpose  of  test 
identification  parade  is  to  test  the 
observation,  grasp,  memory,  capacity  to 
recapitulate  what  a  witness  has  seen 
earlier,  strength  or  trustworthiness  of 
the  evidence  of  identification  of  an 
accused  and  to  ascertain  if  it  can  be 
used  as  reliable  corroborative  evidence 
of  the  witness  identifying  the  accused  at 
his  trial  in  Court.  If  a  witness 
identifies  the  accused  in  court  for  the 
first  time,  the  probative  value  of  such 
uncorroborated  evidence  becomes  minimal 
so  much  so  that  it  becomes,  as  a  rule  of 
prudence  and  not  law,  unsafe  to  rely  on 
such  a  piece  of  evidence." 


704.  Similarly   the    Hon'ble   Apex   Court    in  case 

of  Mehtab  Singh  Vs  State  of  M.P,  1975  (3)  SCC,  page 
407,   the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that: 


"No  test  identification  parade  is  called 
for  and  it  would  be  waste  of  time  to  put 
him  up  for  identification  if  the  victim 
mentions  name  of  the  accused  in  the  first 
information  report  or  he  is  known  to  the 
prosecution  witnesses  from  before. 


7  05.  Similarly  in  Sajjan  Singh  Versus  Emperor, 


616 


AIR  1945  Lahore  48,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held 
that : 

"If  an  accused  person  is  already  well 
known  to  the  witnesses,  an  identification 
parade  would  of  course,  be  only  a  waste  of 
time.  If,  however,  the  witnesses  claim  to 
have  known  the  accused  previously,  while 
the  accused  himself  denies  this,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  the  claim  made  by  the 
witnesses  can  be  used  as  reason  for 
refusing  to  allow  their  claim  to  be  put  to 
the  only  practical  test.  Even  if  the 
denial  of  the  accused  is  false  no  harm  is 
done  and  the  valuer  of  the  evidence  given 
by  the  witnesses  may  be  increased.  It  is 
true  that  it  is  by  no  means  uncommon  for 
persons  who  have  been  absconding  for  a 
long  time  to  claim  an  identification 
parade  in  the  hope  that  their  appearance 
may  have  changed  sufficiently  for  them  to 
scape  recognition.  Even  so,  this  is  not  in 
itself  a  good  ground  for  refusing  to  allow 
any  sort  of  test  to  be  carried  out.  It  may 
be  that  the  witnesses  may  not  be  able  to 
identify  a  person  whom  they  know  by  sight 
owing  to  some  change  of  appearance  or  even 
to  weakness  of  memory,  but  this  is  only 
one  of  the  facts  along  with  many  others, 
such  as  the  length  of  time  that  has 
elapsed,  which  will  have  to  be  taken  into 
consideration  in  determining  whether  the 
witnesses  are  telling  the  truth  or  not. 

70  6.  Not    even    this,     in    the    case    of  Jadunath 

Singh  and  another  Versus  The  State  of  U.P.  (1970)  3 
SCC  518,  a  three  Judges  of  Bench  of  the  Hon'ble 
High  Court  after  referring  to  the  many  decisions 
observed  that : - 

"It  seems  to  us  that  it  has  been  clearly 
laid   down   by   the   Hon'ble    High   Court  in 


617 


Parkash  Chand  Sogani  Vs .  The  State  of 
Rajasthan  (Supra) ,  that  the  absence  of 
test  identification  in  all  cases  is  not 
fatal  and  if  the  accused  persons  is  well- 
known  by  sight  it  would  be  waste  of  time 
to  put  him  up  for  identification.  Of 
course  if  the  prosecution  fails  to  hold 
an  identification  on  the  plea  that  the 
witnesses  already  knew  the  accused  well 
and  it  transpires  in  the  course  of  the 
trial  that  the  witnesses  did  not  know  the 
accused  previously,  the  prosecution  would 
run  the  risk  of  losing  its  case.  It  seems 
to  us  that  if  there  is  any  doubt  in  the 
matter  the  prosecution  should  hold  an 
identification  parade  specially  if  an 
accused  says  that  the  alleged  eye 
witnesses  did  not  know  him  previously.  It 
may  be  that  there  is  no  express  provision 
in  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure 
enabling  an  accused  to  insist  on 
identification  parade  but  if  the  accused 
does  make  an  application  and  that 
application  is  turned  down  and  it 
transpires  during  the  course  of  the  trial 
that  the  witnesses  did  not  know  the 
accused  previously,  as  pointed  out  above 
the  prosecution  will,  unless  there  is 
some  other  evidence,  run  the  risk  of 
losing  the  case  of  this  point." 

707.  The  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  after  referring  to 
the  evidence  adduced  on  behalf  of  the  prosecution 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  as  accused  who  was 
known  to  the  prosecution  witness  from  before, 
identification  by  witnesses  in  the  court  was  not 
affected  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  known." 

708.  Similarly   in   Surendra  Narain   alias  Munna 

Pandey     (supra),     the     Hon'ble     Apex     Court  after 


618 


observing  the  entire  case  law  again  observed  that: 


"On  a  perusal  of  the  above  rulings,  it  is 
clear  that  the  failure  to  hold  the  test 
identification  parade  even  after  a  demand 
by  the  accused  is  not  always  fatal  and  it 
is  only  one  of  the  relevant  factors  to  be 
taken  into  consideration  along  with  the 
other  evidence  on  record.  In  the  claim  of 
the  ocular  witnesses  that  they  knew  the 
accused  already  is  found  to  be  true,  the 
failure  to  hold  a  test  identification 
parade  is  inconsequential." 


709.  As       far       as       the       law       relating  to 

identification  of  an  accused  for  the  first  time  in 
the  court  without  their  being  any  corroboration 
whatsoever  and  that  it  can  form  sole  basis  for  the 
conviction  of  an  accused  is  concerned  in  Budh  Sain 
and  another  Vs.  State  of  U.P,  1970(2)  SCC,  page 
128,   the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that : - 


"There  are  certain  exceptions  to  the  rule 
that  the  identification  of  the  accused  for 
the  first  time  is  not  admissible  as  an 
evidence  and  one  of  these  exceptions  is 
that  when  the  court  is  impressed  by  a 
particular  witness  on  whose  testimony  it 
can  safely  rely  without  such  or  other 
corroboration  if  that  witness  had  any 
particular  reason  to  remember  about  the 
identity  of  that  accused  and  secondly 
where  the  witness  had  a  chance  to  interact 
with  the  accused  or  that  in  a  case  where 
the  witness  had  an  opportunity  to  notice 
the  distinctive  features  of  the  accused 
which  lends  assurance  to  his  testimony  in 
the   court  and  in  these   circumstances,  the 


619 


evidence  of  identification  in  court  for 
the  first  time  by  such  a  witness  can  not 
be  thrown  away  merely  because  no  test 
identification  parade  was  held. 

710.  Lastly    the    Hon'ble    Apex    Court     in  Dana 

Yadav  alias  Dahu  and  others  Vs.  State  of  Bihar,  AIR 
2002  Supreme  Court, 3325,  after  considering  the 
entire  case  law  and  the  matter  in  dispute  laid  down 
the  following  principles :- 

a)  If  an  accused  is  well  known  to 
the  prosecution  witnesses  from 
before,  no  test  identification  parade 
is  called  for  and  it  would  be 
meaningless  and  sheer  waste  of  public 
time  to  hold  the  same. 

b)  In  cases  where  according  to  the 
prosecution  the  accused  is  known  to 
the  prosecution  witnesses  from 
before,  but  the  said  fact  is  denied 
by  him  and  he  challenges  his  identity 
by  the  prosecution  witnesses  by 
filing  a  petition  for  holding  test 
identification  parade,  a  Court  while 
dealing  with  such  a  prayer,  should 
consider  without  holding  a  mini 
inquiry  as  to  whether  the  denial  is 
bona  fide  or  a  mere  pretense  and/or 
made  with  an  ulterior  motive  to  delay 
the  investigation.  In  case  Court 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
dental  is  bona  fide,  it  may  accede  to 
the  prayer,  but  if  however,  it  is  of 
the  view  that  the  same  is  a  mere 
pretence  and/or  made  with  an  ulterior 
motive  to  delay  the  investigation, 
question  for  grant  of  such  a  prayer 
would  not  arise.  Unjustified  grant  of 
refusal    of    such    a    prayer    would  not 


620 


necessarily  enure  to  the  benefit  of 
either  party  nor  the  same  would  be 
detrimental  to  their  interest.  In 
case  prayer  is  granted  and  test 
identification  parade  s  held  in  which 
a  witness  fails  to  identify  the 
accused,  his  so-called  claim  that  the 
accused  was  known  to  him  from  before 
and  the  evidence  of  identification  in 
Court  should  not  be  accepted.  But  in 
case  either  prayer  is  not  granted  or 
granted  but  no  test  identification 
parade  held,  the  same  ipso  facto  can 
not  be  a  ground  for  throwing  out 
evidence  of  identification  of  an 
accused  in  Court  when  evidence  of  the 
witness,  on  the  question  of  identity 
of  the  accused  from  before,  is  found 
to  be  credible.  The  main  thrust 
should  be  on  answer  to  the  question 
as  to  whether  evidence  of  a  witness 
in  Court  to  the  identity  or  the 
accused  from  before  is  trustworthy  or 
not.  In  case  the  answer  is  in  the 
affirmative,  the  fact  that  prayer  for 
holding  test  identification  parade 
was  rejected  or  although  granted,  but 
no  such  parade  was  held,  would  not  in 
any  manner  affect  the  evidence 
adduced  in  Court  in  relation  to 
identity  of  the  accused.  But  if, 
however,  such  an  evidence  is  not  free 
from  doubt,  the  same  may  be  a 
relevant  material  while  appreciating 
the  evidence  of  identification 
adduced  in  court. 

c)  Evidence  of  identification  of  an 
accused  in  Court  by  a  witness  is 
substantive  evidence  whereas  that  of 
identification  in  test  identification 
parade  is,  though  a  primary  evidence 
but  not  substantive  one,  and  the  same 
can  be  used  only  to  corroborate 
identification       of       accused      by  a 


621 


witness  in  Court. 


d)  Identification  parades  are  held 
during  the  course  of  investigation 
ordinarily  at  the  instance  of 
investigating  agencies  and  should  be 
held  with  reasonable  despatch  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  the  witnesses  to 
identify  either  the  properties  which 
are  subject  matter  of  alleged  offence 
or  the  accused  persons  involved  in 
the  offence  so  as  to  provide  it  with 
materials  to  assure  itself  if  the 
investigation  is  proceeding  on  right 
lines  and  the  persons  whom  it 
suspects  to  have  committed  the 
offence  were  the  real  culprits. 

e)  Failure  to  hold  test 
identification  parade  does  not  make 
the  evidence  of  identification  in 
Court  inadmissible  rather  the  same  is 
very  much  admissible  in  law,  but 
ordinarily  identification  of  an 
accused  by  a  witness  for  the  first 
time  in  Court  should  not  from  its 
very  nature  inherently  of  a  weak 
character  unless  it  is  corroborated 
by  his  previous  identification  in  the 
test  identification  parade  is  a  check 
valve  to  the  evidence  of 
identification  in  Court  of  an  accused 
by  a  witness  and  the  same  is  a  rule 
of  circumstances  only,  as  discussed 
above,  evidence  of  identification  for 
the  first  time  in  Court,  without  the 
same  being  corroborated  by  previous 
identification  in  the  test 
identification  parade  or  any  other 
evidence,  can  form  the  basis  of 
conviction . 

g)  Ordinarily,  if  an  accused  is  not 
named  in  the  first  information 
report, his  identification  by 


622 


witnesses  in  Court,  should  not  be 
relied  upon,  especially  when  they  did 
not  disclose  name  of  the  accused 
before  the  police,  but  to  this 
general  rule  there  may  be  exceptions 
as  enumerated  above." 


EVIDENTIARY  VALUE  OF  THE  DISCOVERY  OF  THE 
ABODES  AND  HIDEOUTS  AND  IDENTIFICATION  OF 
THE  SAME  VIS-A-VIS  RECOVERIES  MADE  ON  THE 
BASIS  OF  DISCLOSURE  OF  ACCUSED  PERSONS. 

111.  One    of    the   material    circumstances  relied 

upon  by  the  prosecution,  against  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh,  to  link  them  with 
conspiracy  and  its  execution,  is  that  after  the 
commission  of  crime,  both  these  accused  persons 
escaped  and  stayed  at  different  places  under 
assumed  names  to  conceal  their  identity  and  when 
they  were  arrested,  on  the  basis  of  disclosure 
statement  made  by  them,  various  incriminating 
articles  were  recovered  and  they  also  identified 
all  those  places,  where  they  reside;  from  where 
they  made  telephone  calls  and  the  places  and  the 
shops  from  where  they  purchased  the  articles  for 
preparation  of  belt  bomb  and  got  stitched  the  belt 
bomb  and  Police  uniforms. 


712.  The    evidentiary   value    of    above    facts  was 

considered  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State  Vs. 
Navjot  Sandhu's  case  (Supra),  and  it  was  held  that 
the  act  &  conduct  of  the  accused  persons  after  the 
commission   of   crime   till    their   arrest    relating  to 

623 


the  discovery  of  abodes  or  hideouts  of  the  accused 
persons,  where  they  stayed  and  the  recovery  of 
various  incriminating  articles  therefrom  and 
identification  of  all  those  places  is  admissible  in 
evidence  as  their  conduct  under  Section  8  of  the 
Evidence  Act  has  close  nexus  with  fact  in  issue. 

713.  This    question   was    also    considered   by  the 

Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Parkash  Chand  Vs.  State,  AIR, 
1979,  Supreme  Court,  page  400,  in  the  following 
words : - 

"There  is  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
conduct  of  a  person  against  whom  an 
offence  is  alleged,  which  is  admissible 
under  Section  8  of  the  Evidence  Act,  if 
such  conduct  is  influenced  by  any  fact  in 
issue  or  relevant  fact  and  the  statement 
made  to  a  Police  Officer  in  the  course  of 
an  investigation  which  is  hit  by  Section 
162  Criminal  Procedure  Code.  What  is 
excluded  by  Section  162  Criminal  Procedure 
Code  is  the  statement  made  to  a  Police 
Officer  in  the  course  of  investigation  and 
not  the  evidence  relating  to  the  conduct 
of  an  accused  person  (not  amounting  to  a 
statement)  when  confronted  or  questioned 
by  a  Police  Officer  during  the  course  of 
an  investigation.  For  example,  the 
evidence  of  the  circumstance,  simpliciter, 
that  an  accused  person  led  a  police 
officer  and  pointed  out  the  place  where 
stolen  articles  or  weapons  which  might 
have  been  used  in  the  commission  of  the 
offence  were  found  hidden,  would  be 
admissible  as  conduct,  under  Section  8  of 
the  Evidence  Act,  irrespective  of  whether 
any  statement  by  the  accused 
contemporaneously    with    or    antecedent  to 


624 


such  conduct  fall  within  the  purview  of 
Section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act." 

714.  This    very    principle    was    also    settled  by 

Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Himachal  Pradesh 
Administration  Vs.  Om  Parkash,  AIR  1972,  Supreme 
Court,  page  972  (Supra),  where  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
Court  further  held  that : - 


"Even  apart  from  the  admissibility  of  the 
information  under  Section,  the  evidence  of 
the  Investigating  Officer  and  the  Panchas 
that  the  accused  had  taken  them  to  PW  11 
(from  whom  he  purchased  the  weapon)  and 
pointed  him  out  and  as  corroborated  by  PW 
11  himself  would  be  admissible  under 
Section  8  as   'conduct'   of  the  accused." 

715.  Similarly    in    State    Vs.     Navjot    Sandhu ' s 

case  (supra), the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  reiterated  this 
proposition  with  the  following  observations : - 


"We  have  already  noticed  the  distinction 
highlighted      in      Prakash      Chand's  case 

(supra)  between  the  conduct  of  an  accused 
which  is  admissible  under  Section  8  and 
the  statement  made  to  a  Police  Officer  in 
the  course  of  an  investigation  which  is 
hit  by  Section  162  Cr.P.C.  The  evidence  of 
the  circumstance,  simplicitor,  that  the 
accused  pointed  out  to  the  police  officer, 
the  place  where  stolen  articles  or  weapons 
used  in  the  commission  of  the  offence  were 
hidden,  would  be  admissible  as  'conduct' 
under  Section  8  irrespective  of  the  fact 
whether  the  statement  made  by  the  accused 
contemporaneously  with  or  antecedent  to 
such  conduct,  falls  within  the  purview  of 
Section  27." 


625 


716.  In  the  light  of  above  discussed  legal 
proposition  of  law  on  various  aspects  involved  in 
this  case,  let  the  factual  aspect  of  the  case  be 
considered  to  conclude  the  entire  matter. 

717.  Keeping  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
the  case  of  prosecution  is  based  on  the  different 
acts  played  by  the  different  accused  persons  at 
different  times  but  to  achieve  the  same  conspired 
objective  and  in  prosecution  of  their  conspiracy 
either  jointly  or  in  groups  or  individually,  let  us 
now  take  the  case  each  of  the  accused  person,  one 
by  one  by  as  per  the  evidence  alleged  against  him 
to  link  him  with  the  conspiracy  and  its  execution. 


THE  CASE  AGAINST  DECEASED  PI LA  WAR  SINGH 

718.  As  held  earlier,  it  is  proved  on  the  file 
beyond  any  shadow  of  doubt  that  it  was  accused 
Dilawar  Singh,  who  being  a  'Human  Bomb'  detonate 
himself  near  deceased  Beant  Singh,  killing  him  and 
16  other  persons.  As  such  this  fact  itself  proves 
that  he  was  part  and  parcel  of  this  conspiracy. 

719.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  some  more 
circumstances  which  further  fortifies  the 
connection  of  Dilawar  Singh  with  this  conspiracy. 

720.  First   of    all,    PW-99    Chamkaur    Singh,  real 


626 


brother  of  Dilawar  Singh,  has  deposed  that  on 
31.8.1995,  when  Dilawar  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh 
left  his  house,  Dilawar  Singh  disclosed  that  he  is 
going  to  do  a  big  task  and  PW-99  should  run  away. 
He  further  deposed  that  he  is  fully  satisfied  that 
his  brother  was  involved  in  this  conspiracy. 

721.  Secondly,  when  PW-237  searched  the  native 
house  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  at  Guru  Nanak 
Nagar,  Patiala,  he  found  a  book  in  Punjabi  Article 
P-119  along  with  two  group  photographs  of  Dilawar 
Singh  with  two  other  accused  persons  and  on  the 
last  page  of  book  P-119,  there  was  a  sketch  of  belt 
mark  X,  which  has  been  used  by  Dilawar  Singh  for 
stitching  belt.  PW-85,  G.D.Achint,  an  independent 
witness,  who  was  associated  during  the  search  of 
house  of  Dilawar  Singh  also  corroborated  this 
aspect  and  deposed  that  he  was  a  member  of  the 
police  party  which  went  to  the  house  of  Dilawar 
Singh  along  with  one  more  independent  witness  and 
after  breaking  open  the  lock,  when  the  search  was 
conducted,  a  book  Article  P-119  along  with  the 
photograph  of  Dilawar  Singh  was  recovered  and  taken 
into  possession  vide  memo  Ex.P-85/1. 

722.  Thirdly,  PW-79  has  also  identified  the 
photograph  of  Dilawar  Singh,  Mark  XXXX  as  the 
person,  who  accompanied  Balwant  Singh  on  25.8.1995. 
Similarly  PW-76  also  deposed  that  on  1.7.1995 
accused    Balwant     Singh    along    with    his  companion 


627 


Dilawar  Singh  came  to  his  shop  for  stitching  of  the 
police  uniforms  and  he  noted  their  measurements  on 
the  bill-cum-measurement  book  Ex.P-76/1  and  the 
carbon  copy  of  that  counter  foil  is  Ex.P-76/l-A  on 
which  he  recorded  the  measurement.  He  further 
deposed  that  on  3.7.1995  both  of  them  came  again 
and  took  the  delivery  of  the  uniforms.  He  also 
identified  the  photograph  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh 
Ex. PW-76/3 . 

723.  Fourthly,  even  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
(since  proclaimed  offender)  in  his  confession 
Ex.PW86/6  admitted  that  accused  Dilawar  Snigh  was 
part  and  parcel  of  this  conspiracy  and  he  acted  as 
a  human  bomb.  All  these  facts  are  admissible 
against  Dilawar  Singh,  as  per  the  provisions  of 
Section  30  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,  as  these 
have  been  further  corroborated  and  supported  by  the 
other  circumstantial  evidence  brought  on  record. 

724.  Then  we  have  the  testimony  of  PW-51, 
Surinder  Shama,  painter,  who  also  deposed  that 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  along  with  accused  Balwant 
Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  came  to  his  shop  with  the 
car  for  the  change  of  its  colour  to  ^off-white'  and 
then  from  26.8.1995  to  30.8.1995,  they  visited  his 
shop  in  that  connection  and  he  categorically 
deposed  and  identified  that  accused  Dilawar  Singh 
was  one  of  the  other  person  and  he  identified  his 
photographs    and    further    deposed    that    on    2  9th  and 


628 


30th  August,  1995,  it  was  accused  Dilawar  Singh  and 
Balwant  Singh,  who  came  to  his  shop  to  take  the 
delivery  of  the  car.  Then  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh 
alias  Maula  also  stated  so.  Besides  this, 
associations  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  with  the 
other  accused  persons  is  also  proved  to  link  him 
with  the  conspiracy  from  the  evidence  of  PW-69,  PW- 
95,  PW-102,  PW-111,  PW-113  and  other  witnesses. 
Last  but  not  the  least,  Balwant  Singh  accused  in 
his  confession,  Ex.PW-65/F  as  well  as  in  the 
various  applications  filed  in  the  court  during  the 
trial,  admitted  that  Dilawar  Singh  was  part  and 
parcel  of  this  conspiracy  and  both  of  them 
conspired  together  and  killed  deceased  Beant  Singh. 

725.  Thus  from  the  above  discussed  evidence,  it 

is  proved  that  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  was  part  and 
parcel  of  this  conspiracy  and  he  dared  to  act  as  a 
human  bomb  and  detonate  himself  and  killed  Beant 
Singh  along  with  16  other  innocent  persons  but 
fully  knowing  that  with  kind  of  explosive  device 
and  modes  operandi,  it  was  definite  that  loss  of 
life  and  property  will  be  very  extensive.  However, 
there  is  another  side  of  this  matter,  which  shows 
that  from  the  entire  evidence  of  prosecution,  it  is 
established  that  all  the  accused  persons,  who  will 
be  found  to  have  been  involved  in  the  conspiracy, 
and  helped  each  other  to  fulfill  their  common 
object  of  killing  of  S. Beant  Singh,  will  also  be 
liable   for  abetment   and  instigation  which   leads  to 


629 


deceased  Dilawar  Singh  to  kill  himself  by  working 
as  a  human  bomb,  for  which  they  are  required  to  be 
punished  separately  which  will  be  decided  after 
completing  the  entire  discussion  on  merits  and 
after  knowing  the  involvement  of  all  the  accused  in 
this  conspiracy. 

THE  CASE  AGAINST  ACCUSED  BALWANT  SINGH 

726.  While  considering  the  involvement  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  which  is  not  otherwise 
disputed  by  him,  it  would  be  expedient  to  consider 
the  case  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  also 
because  such  a  course  will  help  to  avoid  the 
repeating  of  evidence  and  would  be  advantageous  as 
the  role  of  both  these  accused  persons  is  co- 
related  and  joint  from  the  beginning  till  the 
execution  of  the  conspiracy  and  also  thereafter 
during  their  escape  till  their  arrest. 

727.  Accordingly  after  considering  the  entire 
evidence  of  prosecution  on  this  aspect,  it  comes 
out  that,  the  prosecution  has  proved  the  following 
circumstances  against  both  accused  Balwant  Singh 
and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara,  which  are  sufficient  to 
say  that  they  were  part  and  parcel  of  this 
conspiracy,  which  was  initially  made  by  them  with 
their  co-accused  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and  was 
further  initiated  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  and 
then    executed   by   them   with   the    help   of    some  more 


630 


accused  persons  and  who  they  are,  is  the  next  point 
for  consideration. 

CIRCUMSTANCE  NO . :    1 . 

Confession  before  PW-65, 

728.  As  far  as,  accused  Balwant  Singh  is 
concerned,  as  discussed  and  held  earlier,  this 
accused  had  already  confessed  his  guilt  but  he 
denied  making  of  the  confession,  Ex.PW65/F. 
However,  it  is  already  held  that  the  confession 
made  by  accused  Balwant  Singh,  Ex.PW65/F  is  true 
and  voluntarily  made.  As  such,  let  us  consider  the 
evidence  of  the  prosecution  concerning  to  this 
accused,  to  know  whether  it  is  corroborated  by  the 
evidence  led  by  the  prosecution  and  to  see  what  is 
the  effect  of  retraction  of  confession  by  this 
accused  on  its  evidentiary  value  against  him  as 
well  as  against  the  other  accused  persons,  keeping 
in  view  the  principle  of  law  discussed  above. 

729.  Before  taking  evidence  of  prosecution  on 
this  point  let  us  consider  the  implications  of 
section  10  of  Evidence  Act  as  far  as  both  these 
accused  persons  are  concerned.  As  per  the 
proposition  of  law  discussed  above,  as  far  as  the 
application  of  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act  to 
the  case  in  hand  is  concerned,  after  scanning  the 
entire   evidence   of   prosecution,    it    comes    out  that 


631 


the  prosecution  could  not  establish  that  after  the 
execution  of  the  conspiracy,  all  the  accused 
persons  continued  to  conspire  with  each  other. 

730.  However,  as  far  as  accused  Balwant  Singh, 
is  concerned,  even  after  commission  of  this  crime, 
when  accused  Balwant  Singh  escaped  from  Chandigarh, 
he  continued  to  have  contacts  with  accused  Jagtar 
Singh  Hawara  and  one  of  the  absconding  accused 
Kuldip  Singh  &  Ram  Singh  and  both  of  them  had 
stayed  together  at  some  places  in  order  to  escape 
arrest  which  shows  that  both  of  them  remained  in 
touch  with  each  other  and  further  conspired  to 
avoid  arrest. 

731.  As  such,  as  far  as  accused  Balwant  Singh 
and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  is  concerned,  the 
confession  made  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  can  be 
taken  into  consideration  as  substantive  evidence 
even  against  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  also  under 
section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act.  However,  as  far  as 
the  remaining  accused  persons  are  concerned,  the 
confession  made  by  accused  Balwant  Singh,  Shamsher 
Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  cannot  be  treated  as 
substantive  evidence  against  them  as  per  the 
proposition  of  law  conclued  in  State  Vs.  Navjot 
Sandhu ' s  case  supra . 

732.  In  this  regard  in  State  of  Maharashtra 
Vs.    Damu  V   (2000)    S.L.T.194  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 


632 


while  taking  into  consideration  the  law  laid  down 
in   State  of  Gujarat  Vs.    Mohd.   Atik's  case  (supra) 

held  that  what  the  accused  have  spoken  to  each 
other  in  reference  to  their  conspiracy,  as  could  be 
gathered  from  the  confessions  of  the  co-accused, 
can  be  regarded  as  relevant  facts  falling  within 
the  purview  of  Section  10  of  the  Evidence  Act  and 
the  same  can  be  used  to  ascertain  what  was  said  or 
done  or  written  between  the  conspirators  for  a 
limited  purpose.  This  very  principle  was  also 
reiterated  in  State  Vs.  Nalini's  case  (supra). 


733.  Thus,   the  conclusion  on  the  above  score  is 

that  the  confessional  statement  made  by  an  accused 
after  his  arrest,  if  admissible  and  reliable,  can 
be  used  against  confessor  as  substantive  evidence 
but  its  use  against  the  other  accused  would  be 
limited  only  for  the  purpose  of  corroboration  of 
other  evidence,  as  per  the  provision  of  Section  30 
of  Evidence  Act  and  it  can  also  be  used  to  lend 
assurance  to  other  evidence  against  the  co-accused. 


734.  The    other   principle   which    comes    out  from 

the  legal  proposition,  mentioned  above,  is  that 
even  a  retracted  confession  can  be  made  basis  to 
convict  a  person,  provided,  it  was  true  and  was 
voluntarily  made  and  has  been  corroborated  on 
general  facts,  as  settled  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
in  Parmanand  Pegu's  case  (supra).  Keeping  in  view 
the  above  settled  law,    let  us     conside  the  evidence 


633 


adduced  by  prosecution  and  compare  the  same  with 
the  confession  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  to 
conclude  that  it  is  true  and  not  retracted  legally 
as  per  the  principle  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex 
court  in  Shankaria's  case  (supra). 


735.  As  stated  earlier  the  making  of  confession 

by  Balwant  Singh  is  proved  to  be  in  favour  of 
prosecution.  At  the  same  time,  accused  Balwant 
Singh  has  admitted  his  guilt  and  killing  of  Beant 
Singh  in  conspiracy  with  deceased  Dilawar  Singh.  As 
far  as  the  retraction  is  concerned,  the  accused 
Balwant  Singh  moved  an  application  on  20.2.1996  and 
alleged  that  he  never  made  the  said  confession 
either  to  the  CBI  or  before  any  Magistrate. 
However,  it  is  proved  that  the  copy  of  challan  is 
already  with  this  accused  in  the  year  1995  itself 
but  he  never  moved  an  application  for  retraction 
before  the  Committing  Magistrate  or  thereafter  when 
the  case  was  committed  to  the  Court  of  Sessions. 


736.  Even   otherwise,    while   retracting   from  the 

confession, he  has  no  where  alleged  that  any 
inducement,  threat  or  pressure  was  made  to  get  that 
confession  and  also  what  are  the  reasons,  what  to 
talk  of  justifiable  reasons  and  how  it  is  supported 
by  any  circumstance,  which  must  be  a  material  one, 
specially  when  it  settled  law  that  time  is  essence 
to  do  so. 


634 


737.  At     the     same     time,     despite  opportunity 

being  granted,  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  failed  to 
cross  examine  PW-65,  Mr .V.K.Maheshwari, 

Metropolitan  Magistrate,  who  has  recorded  his 
confession  and  who  has  categorically  stated  that 
before  recording  the  confession  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh, he  was  fully  satisfied  that  he  is  going  to 
make  the  confession  without  any  pressure,  threat, 
inducement,  torture  etc.  As  such  no  valid  ground 
exists  to  retract  from  the  same  and  when  it  is 
corroborated  generally  and  broadly.  Even  the  cross 
examination  of  this  witness  by  the  counsel  for  the 
other  accused  person  could  not  elicit  anything 
favorable  to  say  that  the  confession  is  not  true 
and  voluntarily  made. 


738.  Above  all,   the  confession  of  guilt  made  by 

accused  in  this  case  itself  shows  that  this 
assassination  is  not  possible  by  Balwant  Singh  and 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  alone,  except  as  per  a 
planned  conspiracy  involving  many  more  person  as 
admitted  by  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara  including 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  if  it  is  so,  the 
facts  disclosed  by  accused  Balwant  Singh  in  his 
confession  is  voluntarily  made  and  there  is  no 
legal  retraction  in  the  eyes  of  law.  On  the 
contrary,  it  comes  out  that  the  only  intention  on 
the  part  of  Balwant  Singh  while  doing  so  was  to 
help  his  co-accused. 


635 


739.  Even  the  legality  and  correctness  of  the 
confession  has  not  been  disputed  by  Balwant  Singh 
by  not  cross  examining  PW-65.  Even  when  question 
no. 249  and  250  was  put  to  the  accused  Balwant  Singh 
regarding  making  of  confession,  Ex.PW65/F,he 
alleged  that  he  do  not  remember,  whereas  later  on 
in  answer  to  question  no. 253  he  admitted  that  in 
his  confessional  statement,  Ex.PW65/F,  he  disclosed 
that  he  had  adopted  Jaswant  Singh  and  his  daughter 
Kamaldeep  Kaur  as  his  father  and  sister  and  this 
fact  goes  to  show  that  this  accused  had  suffered 
the  confession. 

740.  In  Shankaria  Vs.  State  of  Rajasthan's  case 
(Supra).  It  was  settled  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court 
that  where  the  accused, while  retracting  his 
confession,  did  not  say  that  he  was  tutored  by  the 
Police  to  make  confession  nor  he  gave  any 
explanation  and  the  confession  shows  that  there  was 
nothing  improbable  or  unbelievable  in  the  same, on 
the  contrary,  the  same  is  appeared  to  be 
spontaneous,  containing  all  the  details  about  the 
manner  of  the  commission  of  crime,  which  only  the 
perpetrator  of  the  crime  could  know  and  lastly  the 
confession  is  further  corroborated  in  several 
material  particular  from  reliable  circumstantial 
evidence,  it  is  admissible  and  sufficient  to  bring 
home  the  charge  to  the  accused.  This  very 
proposition  of  law  was  again  reiterated  by  the 
Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  State  of  Maharashtra  Vs.  Damu 


636 


and  others  V(2000)  S.L.T.  194. 


741.  Accordingly  in  the  present  case,  the 
further  perusal  of  the  evidence  of  prosecution 
shows  that  when  the  facts  stated  in  the  confession 
were  compared  with  the  evidence,  in  the  light  of 
surrounding  circumstances  and  probabilities  of  the 
case,  the  confession  seems  to  be  a  probable  list  of 
events  and  it  proves  the  previous  act  &  conduct  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  leading  to  planning  of 
conspiracy,  its  preparation  and  its  execution  and 
it  also  proves  the  subsequent  act  of  the  accused 
during  the  time,  he  remained  escaped  and  stayed  at 
various  places  and  the  same  is  also  corroborated  by 
the  extra  judicial  confession  suffered  by  him  and 
there  is  nothing  improbable  or  unbelievable  and  it 
also  appears  to  be  spontaneous  account,  giving 
vivid  details  about  the  manner  of  commission  of  the 
crimes  in  question,  which  only  the  perpetrator  of 
the  crime  could  know.  Thus,  it  is  substantive 
evidence  against  accused  Balwant  Singh  and  it  is 
also  duly  corroborated  and  thus  this  confession  is 
sufficient  alone,   to  convict  him. 

CIRCUMSTANCE  NO.   2.  : 

Confession  before  the  court. 

742.  The  next  and  the  foremost  circumstance, 
which  itself  is  sufficient  to  convict  the  accused 
Balwant    Singh,    is    his    confession   made   before  this 


637 


court  on  several  occasions  as  discussed  above  in 
different  parts  of  this  judgement,  and  which  proves 
beyond  doubt  that  deceased  Beant  Singh  was  killed 
by  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  by  acting  as  Suicide 
bomber  in  conspiracy  with  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  the  other  accused  and  no 
evidence  is  required  to  rely  upon  this 
circumstance,  specially  when  this  accused  has 
further  admitted  that  the  facts  disclosed  by  him  to 
PW-95,  Tejinder  Singh  and  as  stated  on  oath  by  him, 
are  correct  as  far  as  his  and  role  of  other  accused 
persons  is  concerned. 

CIRCUMSTANCE  NO . 3  : 

Association  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  with  other  accused 
persons  including  accused  assassin  Dilawar 
Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Jagtar  Singh  Tar a 
and  Gurmit  Singh. 

743.  The      next      circumstance      which      goes  to 

corroborate  the  facts  stated  in  the  confession  by 
accused  Balwant  Singh,  is  his  association  with  the 
other  accused  persons,  which  is  also  a  material 
fact  and  which  will  also  be  a  circumstance  against 
other  accused  persons  also.  As  such,  the  discussion 
of  this  aspect  is  being  done  to  see  the  association 
of  all  the  accused  persons  with  each  other  and  its 
importance  and  link  with  the  conspiracy. 


638 


744.  In  this  regard,  it  is  undisputed  case  of 
accused  Balwant  Singh  that  he  joined  Punjab  Police 
in  the  year  1997  and  lastly  he  was  a  gunman 
attached  with  Bhushan  Sirhandi,  a  Press  Reporter  of 
a  Hindi  Daily.  Even  PW-62,  C.Sukhwinder  Singh,  who 
has  brought  the  service  file  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh,  Ex.PW62/A,  has  also  proved  the  appointment 
and  last  posting  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  as 
gunman  with  Bhushan  Sirhandi,  a  Press  Reporter  as 
per  the  order,    copy  of  which  is,  Ex.PW62/C. 

745.  Although,  during  his  statement  u/s  313 
Cr.P.C,  he  denied  this  fact  but  in  view  of  the 
testimony  of  PW-62,  C.  Sukhwinder  Singh  and  PW-60, 
Raju  Tamir  Haran,  grandson  of  Bhushan  Sirhandi, 
this  fact  is  proved  and  the  accused  Balwant  Singh 
has  not  cross  examined  him  to  refute  this  fact, on 
the  contrary,  he  gave  a  writing,  Ex. CD/1,  in  his 
own  hand  writing,  saying  that  whatever  has  been 
stated  by  PW-60,    is  correct. 

746.  As  per  PW-60,  accused  Balwant  Singh,  was 
working  as  gunman  with  his  maternal  grand  father, 
Bhushan  Sirhandi  and  he  used  to  remain  on  duty  from 
morning  to  evening.  He  also  deposed  that  accused 
Balwant  was  having  a  scooter,  Ex,P77.  He  further 
deposed  that  he  also  know  deceased  Dilawar  Singh, 
who  was  a  friend  of  Balwant  and  used  to  visit  him 
in  their  office  and  he  also  identified  the 
photograph  Of  Dilawar,   mark  YY,   YY/1  to  YY/5. 


639 


747.  Not  even  this,  when  questions  number  76  to 
79  in  this  regard  were  put  to  accused  Balwant 
Singh,  he  admitted  that  he  had  been  attached  as 
Gunman  with  Bhushan  Sirhandi  for  many  years  and 
protected  him  as  a  member  of  family  and  he  again 
confessed  the  killing  of  Beant  Singh  and  also 
stated  that  whatever  has  been  stated  by  PW-60  in 
the  court  is  correct. 

748.  At  the  same  time  in  answer  to  question 
No. 31  and  32,  the  accused  Balwant  Singh  also 
admitted  that  as  stated  by  PW-99,  Chamkaur  Singh 
brother  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh,  he  was  a  friend 
of  Dilawar  Singh.  Even  otherwise  it  is  undisputed 
admission  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  that  he  and 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  were  involved  in  this  blast. 

749.  Although,  Balwant  Singh  has  denied  his 
association  with  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and 
Gurmeet  Singh,  being  residents  of  same  locality  of 
the  same  city  and  being  old  friends  and  school 
mates  but  this  fact  is  not  disputed  by  the  other 
accused  persons  and  which  is  further  corroborated 
by  witnesses  PW-54,  Deepinder  Mehta,  PW-95, 
Tejinder  Pal  Singh,  PW-113,  Surinder  Kumar,  PW-114, 
Dalbir  Singh  @  Maul la,  PW-69,  Madanjit  Singh  @ 
Channa  and  this  aspect  is  also  proved  in  view  of 
the  testimony  of  PW-99. 


640 


750.  Not  even  this  PW-102,  Kuljeet  Singh,  who 
is  an  old  friend  of  accused  Balwant  Singh,  as  he 
had  also  joined  in  G.R.P.  at  Patiala,  also  deposed 
that  he  was  also  knowing  all  other  friends  of 
Balwant  Singh  including  accused  Gurmeet  Singh,  PW- 
95,  Tejinder  Pal  Singh  and  some  other  friends  named 
by  him.  He  further  deposed  that  on  01.09.1995  at 
about  9.05  a.m.,  accused  Balwant  Singh  came  to  his 
quarter.  He  was  clean  shaven  at  that  time  and  was 
perplexed  and  when  he  questioned  him,  accused 
Balwant  Singh  disclosed  him  that  he  and  his 
companions  had  killed  Beant  Singh,  when  Dilawar 
Singh,  acting  as  a  human  bomb,  detonated  himself 
near  the  Beant  Singh  and  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Tara 
had  drove  Dilawar  Singh  in  an  Ambassador  car  to 
Civil  Secretariat  and  that  car  had  remained  parked 
there  as  the  person  who  had  to  drive  away  the  car 
had  fallen  ill.  He  also  disclosed  that  RDX  has  been 
procured  from  Pakistan  through  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
and  Gurmeet  Singh  had  helped  them  in  manufacturing 
the  bomb . 

751.  One  more  material  witness  of  the 
prosecution  on  this  aspect  is  PW-95,  Tejinder  Pal 
Singh,  who  is  an  old  friend  of  accused  Balwant 
Singh,  being  the  resident  of  same  Guru  Nanak  Colony 
and  being  his  child-hood  friend  and  he  accordingly 
deposed  that  accused  Balwant  Singh  is  his  child- 
hood friend  and  he  knows  him  and  his  friends 
including  deceased  Dilawar   Singh,    Lakhwinder  Singh 


641 


and  Gurmeet  Singh,  who  were  also  identified  by  him 
in  the  court. 

752.  After  that  he  deposed  that  as  and  when  he 
came  to  Patiala  on  his  vacations,  he  used  to  meet 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  and  even  in 
the  month  of  July,  1993  both  of  them  visited  him  at 
Nagpur  and  stayed  with  him  where  he  was  residing 
along  with  his  other  friends  including  PW-94, 
Gurpreet  Singh  and  all  of  them  had  gone  to  Nanded 
Sahib  and  Panchmari  etc. 

753.  He  further  deposed  that  in  June,  1995, 
when  he  was  at  Patiala,  he  met  Balwant  Singh  and 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  as  well  as  Deepinder  Mehta, 
another  friend  of  all  of  them.  He  also  deposed  that 
while  leaving  Patiala,  he  went  to  the  house  of 
Balwant  Singh,  where  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara 
was  also  present  and  accused  Balwant  Singh 
introduced  him  with  him. 

754.  He  further  deposed  that  on  2.9.1995 
accused  Balwant  Singh  reached  at  their  house  at 
Nagpur  and  disclosed  him  that  on  31.8.1995,  he, 
Gurmeet  Singh,  Dilawar  Singh,  Lakhwinder  Singh, 
Jagtar  Singh  and  other  companions  had  assassinated 
Beant  Singh,  Chief  Minister,  Punjab  in  the  Civil 
Secretariat  in  which  Dilawar  Singh  had  served  as  a 
human  bomb . 


642 


755.  He  further  deposed  that  accused  Balwant 
Singh  further  stated  that  the  belt  bomb  was 
prepared  in  the  room  of  Gurmeet  Singh  and  an 
Ambassador  car,  which  was  arranged  by  accused 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  his  companions  from  Delhi, 
was  used  to  reach  the  Secretariat,  by  repainting 
the  same  into  white  colour  from  the  friend  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh  at  Chandigarh  and  on  reaching 
Secretariat,  he  wrote  a  Poem  for  Dilawar  Singh.  Not 
even  this,  accused  Balwant  Singh  also  disclosed  to 
them  that  this  assassination  was  plotted  and 
engineered  at  the  instance  of  Wadhawa  Singh  and 
Mehal  Singh. 

756.  Not  even  this  in  view  of  testimony  of  PW- 
213,  Karamjit  Singh  and  PW-214,  Santokh  Singh,  it 
is  also  proved  that  the  accused  Gurmeet  Singh  was 
also  a  close  friend  of  deceased  Dilawar  Singh  and 
Lakhwinder  Singh.  Similarly  testimony  of  PW-69, 
Madanjit  Singh  @  China  further  proved  that  the 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  was  also  close  friend  of 
Lakhwinder  Singh  as  he  was  working  as  Special 
Police  Officer  in  Punjab  Police. 

757.  Not    even    this,    the    prosecution    has  also 
examined      another     witness,      PW-111,      Mohan  Pal, 
resident    of    Ratuali    Village    in    Himachal  Pardesh, 
who    deposed    that    at    one    point    of    time,  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh,   accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Balwant 
Singh    came    to    his    village    and    stayed   together  in 


643 


June,  1995  and  even  PW-113,  Surinder  Kumar  has 
corroborated  this  fact.  Even  PW-114,  Dalbir  Singh  @ 
Maulla  has  also  corroborated  this  version. 

758.  Even  PW-159,  Gurbachan  Singh  deposed  that 
accused  Dilawar  Singh  used  to  visit  Lakhwinder 
Singh  and  they  used  to  take  liguor  together.  PW-62 
C.Sukhwinder  Pal  Singh,  who  was  also  in  Punjab 
Police  and  who  was  in  the  Security  of  CM  also 
deposed  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  working 
as  Munshi  in  the  Security  Wing  of  Punjab  Police  on 
31.8.1995  and  he  was  clean  shaven  and  deceased 
Dilawar  Singh  was  the  friend  of  Lakhwinder  Singh. 
Not  even  this  when  guestion  No.  10  was  put  to 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  and  Gurmit  Singh  in  this 
regard,   they  admitted  it. 

759.  All  these  witnesses  have  also  identified 
all  these  accused  persons  in  the  court  and  also 
identified  their  photographs.  Since  all  these 
witnesses  were  knowing  these  accused  persons 
personally,  as  such  their  identification  of  the 
accused  persons  in  the  court  is  a  material  evidence 
even  if  we  ignore  the  identity  by  way  of 
photographs . 

760.  One  more  fact,  which  is  material  at  this 
stage  is  that  during  or  prior  to  the  conspiracy, 
accused  Lakhwinder  Singh  was  clean  shaven  whereas 
accused  Balwant  Singh  was   not  having  hairs  but  was 


644 


having  a  French  cut  beard  and  later  on,  both  of 
them  become  baptised  Sikhs  but  despite  this,  they 
were  identified  by  the  witnesses. 

761.  All      these      witnesses      were      duly  cross 

examined  by  learned  defence  counsels  with  a 
explanation  that  they  are  procured  witnesses  and 
deposed  falsely,  as  even  for  a  moment,  it  is 
believed  that  accused  Lakhwinder  Singh,  Gurmit 
Singh  and  Dilawar  Singh  were  known  to  each  other 
being  residents  of  same  locality  and  city,  this 
alone  cannot  be  made  basis  to  say  that  they  were 
part  and  parcel  of  this  conspiracy. 


762.  But     after  going  through  the  testimony  of 

all  these  witnesses,  coupled  with  other  facts  and 
circumstances,  it  comes  out  that,  no  doubt,  the 
stand  of  all  these  witnesses  regarding  the 
association  of  all  of  them  with  each  other  is 
admittedly  not  parse  sufficient  to  say  that  they 
were  also  members  of  this  conspiracy  but  it  also 
goes  to  show  that  since  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
deceased  Dilawar  Singh  were  old  friends  and  were 
known  to  each  other  and  were  having  confidence  in 
each  other  thus  conspired  together  and  later  on, 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  also  associated  himself 
with  them  with  a  obvious  motive  to  use  all  of  them 
to  fulfill  his  motive  to  kill  Beant  Singh.  But 
whether  the  association  of  other  accused  person 
with  them  was   a   consideration   for   conspiracy,  will 


645 


be  seen  after  the  entire  evidence. 

CIRCUMSTANCE  NO . 4  : 

Meeting  of  Balwant  Singh  with  absconding 
accused  Ear jit  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara . 

763.  Accused  Balwant  Singh  in  his  confession, 
Ex.PW65/F  disclosed  that  in  the  month  of 
March/April,  1995,  his  old  friend  Harjit  Singh,  who 
is  now  settled  in  USA,  and  who  is  also  accused  in 
this  conspiracy  but  absconding,  came  to  India  and 
met  him  and  discussed  with  him  about  the  atrocities 
committed  by  the  Punjab  police  on  the  innocent 
persons  on  the  instigation  of  Beant  Singh  the  then 
Chief  Minister,  Punjab  and  who  also  decided  to  kill 
Beant  Singh  and  Balwant  Singh  offered  his  services 
to  do  so  provided  necessary  in  puts  are  made 
available  to  him  and  on  this,  Harjit  Singh  assured 
all  help  to  him  for  this  task  and  Balwant  Singh 
gave  the  telephone  number  of  Bhushan  Sirhindi  for 
future  contacts  in  this  regard. 

764.  Thereafter  sometime  in  early  June  1995 
Harjit  Singh  rang  up  Balwant  Singh  on  the  telephone 
of  Bhushan  Sirhindi,  which  was  attended  by  PW-60, 
Raju  Tamir  Haran  and  told  him  that  Balwant  Singh 
should  contact  him  for  some  work  and  Raju  Tamir 
Haran  passed  on  this  message  to  Balwant  Singh,  who 
went    to    Delhi    and   met    accused   Harjit    Singh  alias 


646 


Mini  Bawa. 


765.  No  doubt,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  on 
the  file  to  prove  the  factum  of  meeting  of  Balwant 
Singh  with  Harjit  Singh  at  his  house  at  Patiala  but 
the  remaining  story  is  duly  proved  on  the  file  from 
the  testimony  of  PW-60,  Raju  Tamir  Haran,  who 
deposed  that  during  the  posting  of  Balwant  singh 
with  his  maternal  grandfather,  accused  Balwant 
Singh  used  to  have  a  Scooter,  Ex.P77  and  he  further 
deposed  that  about  2-3  months  prior  to  incident  in 
question,  he  attended  a  telephone  call  for  Balwant 
Singh  and  the  caller  identified  himself  as  uncle  of 
Balwant  Singh  ad  asked  him  to  convey  a  message  to 
Balwant  Singh  that  he  (Balwant  Singh)  should  meet 
him  at  Gurudwara  Seesh  Ganj  at  New  Delhi  and  on  the 
next  morning  he  conveyed  this  message  to  Balwant 
Singh . 

766.  He  further  deposed  that  after  this  Balwant 
Singh  left  for  Delhi  saying  PW-60,  that  he  is  going 
to  Delhi  for  getting  his  passport.  As  stated 
earlier,  this  witness  has  not  been  cross  examined 
by  accused  Balwant  Singh  on  this  aspect.  On  the 
contrary,  as  per  his  writing  Ex. CD/1,  he  admitted 
that  whatever  has  been  stated  by  PW-60  is  correct. 
Above  all  even  after  the  incisive  cross  examination 
by  the  defence  counsels,  his  testimony  remained 
unrebutted,  specially  when  he  has  deposed  only 
against    accused   Balwant,    who    admitted   his  version 


647 


as  correct. 


767.  In  addition  to  this  PW-124,  Jasbir  Singh, 
Clerk  of  Gurudwara  Seesh  Ganj  of  Delhi  and  PW-125, 
Dalbir  Singh,  Sewadar  of  above  Gurudwara  deposed 
that  on  19.6.1995  one  Manjinder  Singh  along  with 
other  two  persons  stayed  in  room  no.  37  in  the 
Gurudwara . 

768.  In  addition  to  this  accused  Balwant  Singh 
disclosed  that  when  he  went  to  Gurudwara  Seesh 
Ganj,  he  met  accused  Manjinder  Singh  @  Bawaji,  who 
took  him  to  Surya  Hotel,  where  he  was  introduced 
with  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  and  all  of  them 
discussed  the  plan  to  kill  Beant  Singh. 

769.  This  fact  is  also  proved  on  the  file  in 
view  of  testimony  of  PW-132,  Vinod  Kumar,  Manager 
of  the  Surya  Guest  House,  who  when  appeared  in  the 
witness  box  categorically  deposed  that  on 
23.6.1995,  as  per  the  entry  Ex.PW132/7-A  in  the 
guest  register,  Ex.PW132/7,  one  Manjinder  Singh 
stayed  in  their  Hotel  from  9.25  a.m  to  1.00  a.m  and 
at  that  time  he  was  accompanied  by  another  Sikh 
young  man,  who  was  later  on  identified  by  him  as 
accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara. 

770.  He  further  deposed  that  after  some  time 
another  person,  who  was  having  small  beard,  visited 
Manjinder    Singh,    who    was    later    on    identified  as 


648 


Balwant  Singh.  This  witness  further  deposed  that 
when  CBI  questioned  him  about  this  and  some 
photographs  were  shown  to  him,  out  of  those 
photographs,  he  had  identified  the  photo  graph, 
Ex.PW132/l  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara, 
Ex.PW/132/2  of  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Ex.PW/132/3  of  Manjinder  Singh.  During  his 
testimony  before  the  court  he  has  also  identified 
both  these  accused  persons  in  the  court. 

771.  Much  has  been  argued  by  learned  defence 
counsel  as  to  the  identity  of  accused  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara  and  Balwant  Singh  by  this  witness  after 
seeing  the  photographs,  without  conducting  a  test 
identification  parade  from  this  witness,  during  the 
investigations,  alleging  that  this  identification 
is  no  identification  in  the  eyes  of  law  as  per  the 
law  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in  Laxmi 
Pat  Choraria  Vs .  State  of  Maharashtra ' s  case 
(Supra) . 

772.  However,  after  considering  rival 
contentions,  it  comes  our  that  the  entire  law  as  to 
the  identification  of  the  accused  on  the  basis  of 
photo  graphs  by  the  witnesses  has  already  been 
discussed  and  it  has  been  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble 
Apex  Court  in  Laxmi  Pat's  case  (Supra),  that 
showing  of  large  number  of  photographs  to  the 
witness  and  asking  him  to  pick  out  that  of  the 
suspect   is   a  proper  procedure  but   showing  a  single 


649 


photograph  and  asking  a  witness  whether  it  is  of 
offender  is  improper,  even  if  that  suspect  is  later 
on  identified  by  the  witness. 

7  73.  However,    later  on  in  Dana  Yadav  Vs.  State 

of  Bihar's  case  (Supra)  as  mentioned  earlier,  this 
position  is  further  clarified  and  it  was  held  that 
even  if  no  test  identification  parade  was 
conducted, it  itself  is  not  a  ground  for  throwing 
out  the  evidence  of  identification  of  the  accused 
in  court,  when  evidence  of  witness  on  this  point  is 
credible  because  the  evidence  of  identity  of  an 
accused  in  the  court  is  substantive  evidence 
whereas  identity  during  the  test  identification 
parade  is  not. 

774.  Even     in     a     case    where     the    witness  has 

identified  an  accused  for  the  first  time  in  the 
court,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that  it  can  be 
relied  upon  if  it  is  proved  that  the  witness  has 
the  occasion  to  see  the  accused  and  to  interact 
with  him  and  in  this  regard  in  Budh  Sen  Vs.  State 
of  U.P's  case  (Supra),  the  Hon'ble  apex  Court  laid 
down  that  when  the  court  is  impressed  by  a 
particular  witness  in  whose  testimony  it  can  safely 
rely  upon,  without  such  other  corroboration;  if 
that  witness  had  any  particular  reason  to  remember 
about  the  identity  of  that  accused  and  where  the 
witness  had  chance  to  interact  with  a  accused  or 
where  the  witness  has   an  opportunity  to  notice  the 


650 


distinctive  features  of  the  accused,  which  leads  to 
the  assurance  to  his  testimony  in  the  court,  such 
an  identification  can  be  relied  upon  even  without 
any  test  identification  parade. 

775.  Similarly   in   a   case   of    similar    facts  and 

circumstances  based  on  conspiracy  and 

circumstantial  evidence,  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  in 
Laxmi  Raj  Shetty  Vs.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  1988 
Cr.L.J.  1783  held  that  even  when  a  witness 
identifies  an  accused  for  the  first  time  in  the 
court  without  any  prior  identification  parade,  such 
identification  is  admissible  in  evidence,  where  it 
is  proved  that  such  a  witness  had  seen  the 
photograph  of  the  accused  during  the  investigations 
and  identified  him  to  be  the  person  involved. 

77  6.  Similarly     in    D.Gopal    Krishanan's  case 

(supra),  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  held  that  there  is 
no  statutory  guidelines  in  the  matter  of  showing 
photographs  to  the  witnesses  during  the  stage  of 
investigations.  However,  during  the  course  of 
investigations,  the  police  is  entitled  to  show 
photographs  to  confirm  whether  investigation  is 
going  in  the  right  direction  and  this  can  even  be 
done  by  showing  more  than  one  photograph  of  the 
same  person  or  suspect  to  the  witness  but  if  the 
suspect  is  available  for  identification  or  video 
identification,  the  photograph  shall  never  be  shown 
to  the  witness  in  advance. 


651 


777.  Accordingly,  in  the  present  case,  PW-132 
has  categorically  stated  that  when  the  police 
visited  his  Hotel,  some  photographs  were  shown  to 
him  to  identify  the  person,  who  stayed  in  the  Hotel 
and  from  those  photographs,  he  identified  the  three 
photographs  of  Manjinder  Singh,  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  Ex.PW132/l  to  Ex.PW132/3.  He 
has  also  identified  accused  Balwant  Singh  and 
Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  in  the  court  during  his 
testimony  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  record  to 
show  that  photographs  of  these  accused  were  shown 
to  the  witness  prior  to  this  testimony. 

778.  On  the  contrary,  he  identified  these 
accused  persons  of  his  own  and  thereafter  he  also 
deposed  about  the  identity  of  these  accused  on  the 
basis  of  these  photographs  during  the 
investigation.  But  by  no  stretch  of  imagination,  it 
can  be  said  that  he  identified  the  accused  in  the 
court  only  after  seeing  the  photographs  on  that 
date . 

779.  On  the  contrary,  during  his  cross 
examination,  he  deposed  that  about  12  to  15 
photographs  were  shown  to  me  and  he  further  stated 
that  the  name  of  both  these  accused  were  already 
disclosed  to  him  in  January,  1996  and  by  that  time 
neither  accused  Balwant  Singh  nor  Jagtar  Singh 
Hawara    were    arrested    and    as     such    there    was  no 


652 


question  of  arranging  the  test  identification 
parade  of  them  from  this  witness  or  the  other 
witnesses,  who  were  associated  in  this  regard. 
Thus,  the  testimony  of  this  witness  is  reliable  on 
the  identity  of  both  these  accused  persons  as  no 
motive  or  enmity  has  been  shown  qua  this  witness  to 
depose  against  the  accused  persons. 

780.  Not    even    this    in    Umar   Abdul    Shakur  Vs. 

Intelligence    Officer's    case     (Supra),    the  Hon'ble 

Apex  Court  further  held  that  there  are  no  statutory 
guidelines  or  legal  provisions  in  the  matter  of 
showing  photographs  to  the  witnesses  during  the 
stage  of  investigations  and  the  identification  of 
accused  by  photographs  and  while  clarifying  the 
provisions  of  Section  22  of  the  TADA  Act,  which 
permits  the  identity  of  the  accused  through 
photographs,  it  was  held  that  this  provision  is  bad 
but  if  the  witness  appears  in  the  witness  box 
during  the  trial  and  correctly  identify  the  accused 
then  that  identification  can  be  considered  and  if 
it  is  further  corroborated  by  some  evidence,  the 
same  is  admissible  in  evidence. 

782.  Similarly,      in      the      present      case,  the 

identity  of  the  accused  persons  by  PW-132,  in  the 
court  after  seeing  the  photographs  in  the  year 
1996,  is  admissible  even  if  no  test  identification 
parade  was  conducted  as  it  was  not  possible  at  that 
time.    Thus   this  plea  of  learned  defence   counsel  is 


653 


without  any  basis. 


783.  The  next  meeting  which  took  place  between 
accused  Balwant  Singh  and  Jagtar  Singh  Hawara  was 
at  the  residence  of  Balwant  Singh  in  Rattan  Nagar, 
Patiala,  some  where  in  the  first  we